Quote:

---

Calling the Obama administration "irresponsible" for shielding witnesses to the deadly 2012 Benghazi terror attack, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he'll hold up every executive branch appointment and nominee until more survivors are allowed to speak to Congress

Graham called a "60 Minutes" report Sunday a "death blow" to the administration's initial narrative on what sparked the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

"The '60 Minutes' piece conclusively proved ... that al-Qaida was behind this attack, that they had provided warnings to Washington, all of their additional security requests were ignored, and no one's been held accountable," he said.

Graham told Newsmax TV a special committee may be the only way to untangle the events surrounding the attack.

"What Greg Hicks said on '60 Minutes' was pretty telling," he said, explaining that there were three requests made for security, the third of which was denied "and stopped from moving forward from Libya to Washington."

"I know who the person was that stopped that security request, I know what's in it, and the American people deserve to hear about this, and everything around Benghazi has been overly classified for political reasons," he said. "So I hope there will be a bicameral, joint select committee."

Graham refused to elaborate on who stopped the security request, or why.

"But I can tell you this, that the idea that our consulate was attacked by a bunch of protestors was absurd from day one, and it is now absolutely conclusively proven to have been a lie," he said.

But why the ambassador was left in Benghazi is a question still left unanswered, Graham said.

Dismissing the international furor over the reported spying of allies by the National Security Agency as something that "will blow over," Graham insisted that even more disturbing is the lack of accountability of the Obama administration.

"We've gone from blaming [President] Bush for every problem in the world now to [President Obama] doesn't have a clue of what's going on, whether it be Benghazi, whether it be the NSA, IRS, you name it," he said. "It seems to be that the new answer is, 'I just didn't know about that.'"

---

Quote:

---

On October 27, CBS' 60 Minutes featured "Morgan Jones," -- The Washington Post later revealed his real name, Dylan Davies -- a supposed "eyewitness" of the September 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities, who claimed that during the attack he scaled a wall of the compound, personally struck a terrorist in the face with his rifle butt, and later went to the Benghazi hospital to see Ambassador Chris Stevens' body.

The story he told CBS wildly diverged from the account he gave his superiors in an incident report that was obtained by The Washington Post. According to the Post, Davies had previously filed a report with his security contractor employer saying that he "could not get anywhere near" the compound the night of the attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:


They seem very determined to keep Obama from a third term.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
[
"I know who the person was that stopped that security request, I know what's in it, and the American people deserve to hear about this, and everything around Benghazi has been overly classified for political reasons," he said. "So I hope there will be a bicameral, joint select committee."

Graham refused to elaborate on who stopped the security request, or why.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

They seem very determined to keep Obama from a third term.

---

Quote:

---

Moron, cretins, rightwingnuts, fucking tools, gullible, stupid...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Morons, the lot of you.
How many times do I have to point out to you that in presidential elections and electoral politics your "vote" means effectively nothing, that presidential elections are decided long and long before us peons are ever let in for the dog and pony show ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Morons, the lot of you.
How many times do I have to point out to you that in presidential elections and electoral politics your "vote" means effectively nothing, that presidential elections are decided long and long before us peons are ever let in for the dog and pony show ?

---

Quote:

---

Hilary has *ALREADY* bagged up 2016, bought and paid for, so you better just start learning to deal with it, you cretins.

---

Quote:

---

That might not have been SUCH a sure thing if you rightwingnuts weren't such complete fucking tools, gullible to an extreme, stupid beyond fathom, and so easily manipulated anyone with even the remotest idea of how little cognitive process you have can make you dance on command, so in the end the only blame for this lies as close as the nearest mirror.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

But go on, pretend the game isn't rigged if that makes you happy.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Reallly Dreamtrove ?
"weak results" is the *best* bullshit you can come up with ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Especially in light of my track record with predictions around here and calling something top to bottom, then laughing up my sleeve when it all turns out just that way - but in this case it isn't even necessary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Lets look at this objectively for a moment.

The Democrats, curse them to hell or not, have a candidate, they have a solid plan, party unity and the votes to put plans in action even over opposition.

The Republicans, incompetent imbeciles, have no candidate, no plan beyond throwing a tantrum when they get run over, are locked up in blamestorming and circular firing squads, and no amount of gerrymandering is gonna get them enough votes to do anydamnthing even if they could think of something TO do.

Now if YOU were a political power broker, looking to profit from this mess, where would you be placing YOUR bets right now ?

This isn't rocket science here, unless the GOP brings something other than halfassed crazy to the table, they've nothing on offer and the kingmakers will laugh them out of the room.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
And back on topic, and speaking of Logic-Fail....

Yeah, isn't it amazing how often rightwing "witnesses" turn out to be totally full of shit ?
Yanno, like that lady selling the whole kuwati incubators bullshit story, or how about good ole "curveball" Chalabi, eh ?

And this whole spindance here reeks of typical rightwing cut-and-paste, logic-fail magickal thinking anyways.

Let me break this down.


They WANTED intervention/regime change in Libya.
They were warned this was a terrible idea.

They were told what the potential consequences might be.
They brushed this off nonchalantly out of the same kind of immense and appalling ignorance which brought them to think the Iraqis would welcome our intervention.

We went and doubled down on stupid, did what they wanted.
Predictably those consequences came around, and they were the first ones to whine and wail about it - and one of their main hissyfits was over not throwing more troops (human beings, mind you) needlessly into the meatgrinder despite the fact that their presence would have made NO DIFFERENCE TO THE OUTCOME.

The angry mob which smashed up everything was in the hundreds easily, maybe past that, did we learn nothing from our disastrous fumbling in Somalia ?

Nah, the main reason the rightwingies wanted us to hang more american troops out to dry so they could be torn apart by folks with something of a legit gripe was so they could then blame the administration for those deaths and whip up moral outrage to hide the fact that intervention in the first place was their own goddamn stupid idea - and it shows just how much actual respect they've got for "the troops" right there.

And why oh why was an angry mob wrecking our embassy, hmmm ?
Well, because we used it as a C3 center to help overthrow the legitimate and established government of the country that said embassy was *IN*, and were torturing locals who we didn't like in the basement, thus enraging prettymuch everyone in the whole damn country at us, even a good chunk of the alleged rebels, AND it pissed off the neighboring countries something awful on top of it, hell given the complete violation and misuse of diplomatic protections we oughta count ourselves lucky Egypt didn't declare war on us.

Add to that it coming out just how aggressively and offensively we committed espionage using our embassies as cover, almost every nation in the world would be well within their rights to forcibly remove them at any time.


And yet all we hear from the rightwing assholes is whining about not throwing more troops out to be slaughtered so they'd have even more to whine about.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
A lot of secondary things still bother me about Benghazi in addition to the main questions that still remain unanswered. Little things like.....

a) How can Petraeus give 15 minutes of secret testimony behind closed doors ... and that's it?! We're not allowed to know what he said about what he knew as CIA Director? He didn't know anything about the attack or talking points planning? Riiiiiight! I see. Just retire and disappear.

b) Former Sec of Defense Gates testified that he spoke to Obama when the shit started, but never heard back from Obama, and was never asked about it again from Obama ... er, um, uh really? I mean what the fuck? That's it? That's the final story? OK, everything's fine ... move along.

c) Hillary's testimony totally contradicted what other officials at the State Dept had previously testified to. So she lies for two hours, then retires, and that's that! How nice for her.

d) And Republicans ....no hearings in 10 months? No consequences? No nothing. Aw gee, is the Obama Govt. stonewalling y'all? Well ain't that a bitch!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
A lot of secondary things still bother me about Benghazi in addition to the main questions that still remain unanswered. Little things like.....

a) How can Petraeus give 15 minutes of secret testimony behind closed doors ... and that's it?! We're not allowed to know what he said about what he knew as CIA Director? He didn't know anything about the attack or talking points planning? Riiiiiight! I see. Just retire and disappear.

b) Former Sec of Defense Gates testified that he spoke to Obama when the shit started, but never heard back from Obama, and was never asked about it again from Obama ... er, um, uh really? I mean what the fuck? That's it? That's the final story? OK, everything's fine ... move along.

c) Hillary's testimony totally contradicted what other officials at the State Dept had previously testified to. So she lies for two hours, then retires, and that's that! How nice for her.

d) And Republicans ....no hearings in 10 months? No consequences? No nothing. Aw gee, is the Obama Govt. stonewalling y'all? Well ain't that a bitch!

---

'Obama's Watergate' doesn't seem to be materialising, does it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
'Obama's Watergate' doesn't seem to be materialising, does it? Perhaps if a John Dean figure emerges from Obama's inner circle at some point it might be different. But then again, there would also need to be an honest Attorney General, as well as an inquisitive and confrontational press to ever have any Watergate-type justice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
'Obama's Watergate' doesn't seem to be materialising, does it? Perhaps if a John Dean figure emerges from Obama's inner circle at some point it might be different. But then again, there would also need to be an honest Attorney General, as well as an inquisitive and confrontational press to ever have any Watergate-type justice.

---

They don't need a new John Dean. Or Woodward and Bernstein.

Death in a war zone of State Department civil servants seems sufficient reason for the House of Representatives to vote for articles of impeachment. The House can demonstrate their patriotism by risking their political careers to protect the USA from Obama. What are they waiting for? Permission from the Obama's Attorney General? Evidence from Obama's State Department? Why? The House doesn't need Obama's permission to vote for articles of impeachment.

The impeachment then moves to the Senate for trial. Only Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have been impeached. Both were acquitted. But next time, Senator Lindsey Graham will get a conviction. Civil servants died in a war zone -- it's only right that the President take the blame.

Now for the ad hominem attack: Sen. Graham's colleagues respect him and will do whatever the squeaky little man who's always being interviewed on TV, and always upset about something, thinks best. They will end Obama for once and for all time! "Your time has expired."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
There was a question posed to me by kpo which I answered. You included that question along with my response and quoted it as if I had asked the question. Don't know if I've ever seen that maneuver before. House Republicans impeaching Obama? Right after I win the Fl. lottery.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:


That might not have been SUCH a sure thing if you rightwingnuts weren't such complete fucking tools, gullible to an extreme, stupid beyond fathom, and so easily manipulated anyone with even the remotest idea of how little cognitive process you have can make you dance on command, so in the end the only blame for this lies as close as the nearest mirror.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

CBS News pulled a crumbling 60 Minutes report on the 2012 Benghazi attacks from its website and YouTube channel amid new information from The New York Times that corroborates claims that CBS' star witness provided conflicting accounts about what he witnessed the night of the attack. Jeff Fager, CBS News chairman and 60 Minutes executive producer, hinted that a correction may be forthcoming.

The network was heavily criticized by veteran journalists and media critics after The Washington Post reported that Morgan Jones, the eyewitness on whom 60 Minutes based its report, had given CBS a story of the attacks that was contradicted by what he told the security contractor he worked for at the time.

On November 7, it was revealed by the Times that the account of the attacks that Jones, whose real name is Dylan Davies, gave to the FBI did not match what he told CBS News' Lara Logan.

---

Quote:

---

NORAH O'DONNELL: 60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts its October 27 account of an ex-security officer who called himself Morgan Jones. His real name is Dylan Davies, and he recounted to Lara Logan in great detail what he claimed were his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. Lara joins us this morning, Lara, good morning.

LARA LOGAN: Good morning Norah, well. You know the most important thing to every person at 60 Minutes is the truth and today the truth is that we made a mistake, and that's very disappointing for any journalist. It's very disappointing for me. Nobody likes to admit that they made a mistake, but if you do, you have to stand up and take responsibility and you have to say that you were wrong, and in this case we were wrong. We made a mistake. And how did this happen?

Well, Dylan Davies worked for the State Department in Libya. He was the manager of the local guard force at the Benghazi special mission compound, and he described for us his actions that night, saying that he had entered the compound and he had a confrontation with one of the attackers, and he also said that he had seen the body of Ambassador Chris Stevens in a local hospital. And after our report aired, questions were raised about whether his account was real.

After an incident report surfaced that told a different story about what he'd done that night. And, you know, he denied that report. And he said that he told the FBI the same story that he had told us, but what we now know is that he told the FBI a different story to what he told us. And, you know, that was the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source, and that we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers.

O'DONNELL: Why were you convinced that Dylan Davies was a credible source, that the account that he provided was accurate? How did you vet him?

LOGAN: Well, we verified and confirmed that he was who he said he was, that he was working for the State Department at the time, that he was in Benghazi at the special mission compound the night of the attack, and that, you know, he showed us -- he gave us access to communications he had with U.S. government officials. We used U.S. government reports and congressional testimony to verify many of the details of his story, and everything checked out.

He also showed us photographs that he had taken at the special mission compound the following morning and, you know, we take the vetting of sources and stories very seriously at 60 Minutes. And we took it seriously in this case. But we were misled, and we were wrong, and that's the important thing. That's what we have to say here. We have to set the record straight and take responsibility.

O'DONNELL: Last Thursday, The Washington Post ran a report that questioned the central parts of what Davies had told you. They cited this incident report right after the attack that he gave to Blue Mountain, the security firm that he worked for. He told them that he never made it to the compound, that he was at his villa there. Did you know about that report, that incident report?

LOGAN: No, we did not know about that incident report before we did our story. When The Washington Post story came out, he denied it. He said that he never wrote it, had nothing to do with it. And that he told the FBI the same story as he told us. But as we now know, that is not the case.

O'DONNELL: But why would you stand by this report after Dylan Davies admitted lying to his own employer?

LOGAN: Because he was very upfront about that from the beginning, that was always part of his story. The context of it, when he tells his story, is that his boss is someone he cared about enormously. He cared about his American counterparts in the mission that night, and when his boss told him not to go, he couldn't stay back. So, that was always part of the record for us. And, that part didn't come as any surprise.

JEFF GLOR: 60 has already acknowledged it was a mistake not to disclose that the book was being published by Simon & Schuster, which is a CBS company. There are also these reports now that Davies was asking for money. Did he ever ask you for money?

LOGAN: He did not. He never asked us for money. It never came up.

O'DONNELL: So how do you address this moving forward? Are you going do something on Sunday on 60 Minutes?

LOGAN: Yes. We will apologize to our viewers, and we will correct the record on our broadcast on Sunday night.

O'DONNELL: And have you been in touch with him since?

LOGAN: We have not. We, after we learned of the latest news about the FBI report, we tried to contact him but we haven't heard back from him.

O'DONNELL: You have had no contact with him since then.

LOGAN: Not so far.

O'DONNELL: And not about this latest news about the FBI report.

LOGAN: No.

GLOR: Lara Logan, thank you very much.

LOGAN: Thank you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Hilary has *ALREADY* bagged up 2016, bought and paid for, so you better just start learning to deal with it, you cretins.

---

Quote:

---

Those superdelegates—796 current and former Democratic politicians who could have brokered a deadlocked convention—were an afterthought in the end, as Obama secured a clear majority of delegates from the primaries and caucuses. But this time around, perhaps to preserve their relevance, some of those superdelegates are jumping in early to sway the race in Clinton's favor before it even starts—and before HRC even declares an intention to run.

The Iowa caucuses are still more than two years away, but nearly every prominent Democratic politician has already endorsed Clinton, rushing over each other to effusively praise the would-be president and offer their full-throttled support.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Lara Logan has hit the point where the only thing you can say about her as a journalist is... "Nice tits."

---

Quote:

---

I bet you wish you were in on attacking her, in Tahir Square.

---