HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Me on the O'Reilly Factor...

Sat May 10, 2014, 04:29 PM

 

Me on the O'Reilly Factor criticizing Republicans for starting yet another Benghazi investigation

23 replies, 3492 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Me on the O'Reilly Factor criticizing Republicans for starting yet another Benghazi investigation (Original post)
stevenleser May 2014 OP
lumpy May 2014 #1
stevenleser May 2014 #8
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #2
Bernardo de La Paz May 2014 #11
PoliticalPothead May 2014 #3
stevenleser May 2014 #6
PoliticalPothead May 2014 #19
rickyhall May 2014 #7
Cha May 2014 #17
jimlup May 2014 #4
Scuba May 2014 #5
4bucksagallon May 2014 #9
calimary May 2014 #10
stevenleser May 2014 #15
maddiemom May 2014 #22
maddiemom May 2014 #23
Thinkingabout May 2014 #12
chknltl May 2014 #13
lovemydog May 2014 #14
MannyGoldstein May 2014 #16
Cha May 2014 #18
mdbl May 2014 #20
heaven05 May 2014 #21

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 05:38 PM

1. Mr. Leser did a great job refuting the phony claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumpy (Reply #1)

Sat May 10, 2014, 06:23 PM

8. Thank you very much!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 05:39 PM

2. What latest Benghazi panel is really all about

A pathetic campaign fund raising ploy.

http://benghaziwatchdogs.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #2)

Sat May 10, 2014, 07:23 PM

11. Also really about tarring Hillary Clinton. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 05:40 PM

3. And of course, neither side mentions the reason our consulate was in Benghazi in the first place.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticalPothead (Reply #3)

Sat May 10, 2014, 05:56 PM

6. Not mentioned because it is pretty far off topic. Not to mention poorly sourced.

 

The very first comment to that article tells anyone how seriously they should take Hersh's claims.

Letters
Vol. 36 No. 9 · 8 May 2014

For a second time the LRB has aired Seymour Hersh’s highly shaky claim that the opposition was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on the Ghouta on 21 August 2013 (LRB, 17 April). Hersh provides only one source for the key claims in his piece: a ‘former intelligence official’. As the bloggers Eliot Higgins and Scott Lucas have shown, he entirely ignores the overwhelming balance of tangible evidence that indicates the responsibility of the regime for the Ghouta attack. The two types of munitions found at the site were the Soviet M14 and an improvised type of rocket known as ‘the Volcano’. Both have been spotted in several combat videos, always being used by regime forces and never by the opposition. Contrary to Hersh’s claims in his first article, all of the rockets used were well within range of regime-held areas (LRB, 19 December 2013). The position of the intact munitions, in particular ‘Missile 197’, indicates a firing point to the north, where the regime-held areas were. The 21 August incident involved multiple rocket attacks on the Ghouta from those directions.

A lot hinges on Hersh’s implication that the Islamist fighters arrested in Turkey in May 2013 were part of a sarin-producing operation. Indeed, the local press did report that the men were carrying two kilogrammes of sarin. The charges laid by the court did not say this: they said that the men were carrying chemicals that could have been used to produce sarin. Perhaps they intended to do so, but they would have needed much more time. At least eight ‘Volcanoes’ were fired on the Ghouta. Each warhead carries an estimated fifty litres of sarin. It took Aum Shinrikyo years, trillions of yen and a dedicated factory to come up with less than a tenth of that. Not only did the jihadists supposedly come up with the sarin in miraculously large quantities without anyone knowing about it, according to Hersh’s intelligence official they then filled perfect copies of regime munitions with the stuff, transported them to areas north of the Ghouta (unopposed by the regime forces occupying those areas) and launched them at their own side.

Hersh has dropped his arguments of December – including the claim that a secret US sensory system in Syria should have shown evidence of the attack – and wants us to take the word of a single unnamed spook instead. Likewise, the Russian Foreign Ministry initially said there had been no attack and that the YouTube footage was false, on the basis of the timestamp on the videos. When it was pointed out that this was due to the time difference between Syria and the US, where YouTube marks its timestamps, and that the actual timing was entirely consistent with reports of the attack, the idea was dropped without further ado. This is not a method of argument that inspires confidence.

Whose sarin? Assad’s, almost certainly. Why did he do it? Perhaps he thought Russian diplomatic cover would let him get away with it. That is what happened, after all.

Jamie Allinson
London NW6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #6)

Sun May 11, 2014, 04:33 AM

19. Off topic? Seems to me like it gives some much needed context to the story.

And you'll have to excuse me for taking the word of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist over that of an internet commentator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticalPothead (Reply #3)

Sat May 10, 2014, 06:04 PM

7. Kind of like

One country selling another country's weapons to a third country while being financed through buying drugs from a fourth and selling them in a fifth country.

Corporate Insurrectionists Agency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticalPothead (Reply #3)

Sun May 11, 2014, 02:17 AM

17. fuck hersh and his stupid conspriacy therories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 05:47 PM

4. The host was frothing at the mouth

thanks for being our voice. I might have just started yelling at the guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 05:55 PM

5. Well done, thanks Steven.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 06:25 PM

9. Kudo's to Steve and Leslie for going on Fox Snooze. I wouldn't have been so cordial....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 06:27 PM

10. I actually think Dems should be present on that kangaroo committee - to bring a little

uh - "fair and balanced" - because otherwise it'll be NON-STOP GRANDSTANDING and theirs will be the ONLY talking points you see on TV. Our side at least has a chance to get soundbites on TV.

But Steve - where you were FREAKIN' BRILLIANT was the litany of cases you recited one after the other - Beirut, 9/11, the Tet Offensive, all those. The only thing you forgot was - while they're huffing and puffing over four deaths, WHY have they yet to say anything about the four-THOUSAND deaths in Iraq - that were lost to a LIE? You shrewdly reminded, though, that we're somewhere between the fifth and the eighth investigation, is this the seventh time we go back and beat that dead horse? Same witnesses, same testimony, we make fun of Italy for three Amanda Knox hearings. GREAT stuff!!! It reminded me of the Xeroxed talking point that every GOPer near a camera or microphone "they counted, they counted again, they counted a third time..." during Selection 2000. Remember how EVERY DAMN ONE OF 'EM said that same talking point? Nauseating. But I guess they do love their repetition! It "kinda catapults the propaganda," as their little phony cowbow georgie once pointed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #10)

Sun May 11, 2014, 12:16 AM

15. Thank you so much for saying those nice things!

 

When I was prepping for the segment, those litany of cases just came to me as an idea to mention at an opportune time. I had a last case I was going to throw in there for comedic effect. I was going to add at the end "if you want, you can go all the way back to Custer and the little bighorn. I'm sure General Custer missed a few things that should have told him he was heading into a situation he couldn't win. Maybe we should investigate President Rutherford B Hayes role in that disaster"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #15)

Sun May 11, 2014, 10:13 AM

22. Love it. Particularly the last couple lines re: Custer/Hayes...brilliant. Wish you could have got

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddiemom (Reply #22)

Sun May 11, 2014, 10:15 AM

23. ...gotten it in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 07:25 PM

12. And of course you did not provide FOX with false information their listeners

Are used to hearing. Issa was nit able to produce the results desired by the GOP, ACA is proving past information as lies so there is not much left for the GOP to run on in 2014 or 2016. I look for this new committee will try to continue through the 2013 elections.

Good post, thanks for your ability to throw sanity into this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 07:26 PM

13. How many millions of tax dollars have been wasted so far?

In my opinion, if the Republicans in Congress want a hearing on: "Who is responsible for water being wet!", we should bless their wasteful little hearts for doing so......while pointing it out LOUDLY to the American voter how they waste our hard earned tax dollars! If there isn't one out there already, a chart of the costs to the people of the prior Benghazi Hearings could be very useful.

Another chart charting the costs in tax dollars spent by members of Congress in repeated failed attempts to shut down the ACA could be useful too. One would think that the tax payer would be quite fed up with all the wasteful spending going on on Capital Hill. Make these bastards share the results of their wasteful spending to the American voter!

One has to wonder, had not all that money been uselessly spent, what sort of tax rebate each of us could be getting in the mail? No, of course that ain't how it works but when put to the American voter from that perspective....well, I am thinking that they will call for an end to this sort of Republican nonsense pretty quick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sat May 10, 2014, 07:31 PM

14. Excellent work Mr. Leser

You make a great argument that since it's the sixth or seventh time around, Democrats shouldn't participate in this partisan fishing expedition. I care about the economy. More jobs, better wages. Not wasting taxpayer money on more Benghazi hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sun May 11, 2014, 12:43 AM

16. Thumbs up.

 

Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sun May 11, 2014, 02:18 AM

18. Thank you steven for being out there in the fox holes for us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sun May 11, 2014, 08:00 AM

20. Thanks Steven

Even though I donT think talking to faux news viewers makes any difference, it was a noble effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Sun May 11, 2014, 10:08 AM

21. at least you're out there

 

refuting their political grandstanding. good job. keep representing our point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread