Glenn Greenwald gets uppity, questions the liberal line on Benghazi

[limpyhobbler]

[CheapShotArtist]

1. Fuck Greenwald

eom.

[limpyhobbler]

2. I completely disagree with what you just said.

eom

[radiclib]

8. Right, fuck him

and fuck Nader, Chomsky, Hamsher, Cenk, Taibbi, and anyone else who might have the temerity to challenge Our Team.
Your handle is appropriate, and this kind of shit is very old.

[drynberg]

20. GG did not say one incorrect statement, as I just re-listened to the whole clip

So, throwing an F Bomb at him doesn't change what he said. This makes me so tired...

[JaneyVee]

24. Greenwald was wrong because it's been proven that the administration was echoing CIA intel.

Also, Petraeus testified that groups names were scrubbed from revisions to avoid tipping off attackers of investigation.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html?_r=0

[midnight]

38. So was the CIA echo incorrect?

[pmorlan1]

21. Thank you radiclib

I second your comment.

[brush]

25. I say investigate the whole thing (including the funding of the anti-Muslim film . . .

. . . not just the Benghazi attack but the whole climate of protest and violence that swept the Middle East region before the attack — and what fomented it.

There were demonstrations all over the region because of the film "Innocence of Muslims" produced by the shadowy figure, Mark Basseley Youssef, AKA Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, AKA Sam Bacile. The guy had just gotten out of prison 3 months before.

Who the hell is he? Is no one curious about such a shadowy figure? And how does an ex-con (with 3 aliases no less) get the kind of money to hire actors, crew and equipment to film the movie, get it processed and onto YouTube and then notify just the right people in the Middle East to spread the news far and wide of this inflammatory film being online?

Somebody financed this, and I've even read that some funding may have come from anti-Muslim factions here in the U.S. Why won't the repugs talk about that? It's more than strange that this guy straight out of jail could get this film done and then be hustled back into jail (so he can't talk, maybe?).

And let's not forget, Mitt Romney was somehow notified of the attack before even the White House and went on the air (with a smirk on his face) before anyone had time to sort out what happened, to blame Obama.

IMHO, this was supposed to be the October Surprise of the Romney campaign timed on 9/11 though to make it even more damaging to the President.

And one other thing, the repugs are rekindling this so called Benghazi scandal (it died down before) apparently to damage Hillary for 2016 and the dems for 2014 without a word of their silence and inaction after the 12, count 'em, 12, U.S. Embassy and Consulate attacks during the Cheney/Bush administration (44 or more people killed). Where were their protestations then?

A larger point is, no president has gotten through his whole presidency without there being embassy and consulate attacks. Under Clinton there were 8. So far under Obama there have been 3. It's a dangerous world. The U.S. is resented in many countries. Shit happens, and this shit needs to be traced back to its root. Was there funding from the U.S. anti-Muslim factions, or even from figures with ties to Romney? Who knows, but there needs to be a real investigation, and not on just what happened that night in Benghazi.

[another_liberal]

3. Bill Maher never did get his answer?

What is the scandal? What is the point of all of this?

Is it that President Obama and some other administration representatives misspoke concerning the imperfectly understood, still evolving and yet to be investigated crisis in Benghazi? Is it that the President did not use his magical powers to alter the time/space continuum so that defense assets could be sent to protect our diplomats in Benghazi in fifteen minutes instead of the three or four hours actually required? Do the Republicans really believe he should be impeached for that? So it would seem.

Of course, we should also overlook the fact that Republicans in Congress had previously slashed the budget for providing security at our embassies worldwide. Yeah, just forget about that.

[limpyhobbler]

4. Sure he did...he said it's not a big scandal but it does warrant investigation.

“I still don’t know what the scandal is,” Maher lamented.

The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald examined the media spectrum’s initial take on it — Fox News deeming it a major scandal and MSNBC arguing the White House didn’t err — and stated that neither extreme was accurate. It’s not a massive scandal the way the right has said, Greenwald argued, but the administration did put forth information that was untrue, whether intentionally or mistakenly. And that does merit investigation.

(via)

[another_liberal]

5. Nope.

The Obama administration provided us with the best information they had on a crisis that was evolving and only partially understood at the time. That is nothing to investigate, it is perfectly understandable.

What should be investigated, however, is the duplicity of Congressional Republicans who try to ramp this up into a scandal when they are the ones who cut over two hundred million dollars from the State Department budget for security at our embassies, and that was for fiscal year 2012, the year when this attack happened. How about investigating that, hmmmm?

[limpyhobbler]

6. So you're saying if a US embassy is attacked and 4 people are killed, nobody should investigate?

I think that's what you just said.

[another_liberal]

7. There have been three investigations . . .

There have been three major investigations already, as well as nine Congressional hearings. The results only suggest it is regrettable we did not have more security assets on hand in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Too bad the Republicans cut all of that security funding, right?

[limpyhobbler]

10. Well I think if any Americans died in Libya it was mostly Obama's fault.

He's the one who got us involved there.

I'm sure if Obama and/or Hillary had known the attack was coming they would have found the resources to either defend this outpost, or to evacuate it.

They have the whole US military at their disposal so I'm pretty sure they could have pulled together some evacuation team if they had been prepared for an attack.

The idea that they were powerless to do anything because funding had been cut for security guards, it doesn't add up when you consider the amount of power these people really have.

[another_liberal]

12. That's what the money was for . . .

That's what the money was for, my friend, and cutting it made us less able to be "prepared." There are threats to many of our embassies. If you remember, our embassy in Cairo had been attacked only days before the attack in Benghazi. Either our President and Secretary of State have to be infallible clairvoyants, who know beforehand where to expect an attack, or Congress must provide enough funding to staff security everywhere it might possibly be needed. Take your pick.

[DURHAM D]

9. It was not a US embassy.

It was not even a US consulate. Apparently you have not been following the facts from the get go.

[limpyhobbler]

11. I think it was a consulate and residence of a US Ambassador.

Is that right?

[DURHAM D]

13. No and No Neither is correct.

It has been referred to as a "diplomatic outpost" only because the US Ambassador had traveled there (from the embassy in Tripoli) to visit but it was actually a CIA operation and therein lies the problem. The Libyan government had apparently not been informed about this CIA operation so from the get go the State Department has been tasked with trying to help cover for the intelligence community and the WH.

This is why the Republicans have been able to have fun with all of the "investigations" and suck people in who are not smart enough (or choose not) to figure out that they are simply working to sully Hillary in the run-up to the 2016 elections because the assholes know that no one is going to stand up in public and scream at them "You know damn good and well it is Gen. Petraeus you need to talk to". The Republican Senators who have actually read the information provided to them are satisfied. PERIOD. The House Republicans either can't read or choose not to receive facts.

[DaDeacon]

19. YES YES and BIG YES!!!!

This is the real story ..I have said it again and again . The facts all lead to punk'ing the president into tipping his CIA hand. If he came out and said what had happened there the blowback would be huge if he stays silent ( witch he has) then it just stays a black eye that may hurt but in time will go away. This is a real "inside baseball" story and the media has done NO real reporting on it.

[pmorlan1]

23. More information not less

I agree that the Republicans only want to use this as a political football but as a citizen I want to know the details. I want to know what the CIA was doing. We need more transparency not less. I'm sure the Libyan's were well aware that the CIA was involved. It's only the American people who are left in the dark and that's wrong.

[MADem]

27. Bingo. That's it EXACTLY. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. From what I've read, that was the cover story for the most exposed CIA Black Site in history.

[Proletariatprincess]

30. Maher said he was bored with the topic, remember?

That was right after Greenwald made him look like a moron.

[another_liberal]

37. Greenwald didn't make anyone look like a moron, except himself.

He merely continued to talk in circles around the same vague nothing of a non-point. I would have changed the subject too if I had been the host.

[SCVDem]

16. Greenwood was a douche!

His self righteousnesss was irritating!

[JDPriestly]

17. Glenn Greenwald and all of them need to go to WhiteHouse.gov

and listen to Obama's speech in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012.

Obama did not lie. The speech did not specifically name Al Qaeda terrorists, but considering that the ambassador had just died the night before the speech in the Rose Garden, certainly no more than 36 hours earlier, Obama was very candid.

There were riots and protests about the movie. They hit the news first. Maybe they happened first and then the Benghazi attack happened.

There was a group of CIA people in Benghazi. It took them a long time to get to the consulate to help the ambassador and the staff there. If there is a scandal involved in the Benghazi incident, it has to do with the delay in the CIA's response to it since they were in Benghazi. It might also have to do with the underlying reason why the Turkish and American ambassadors were meeting in Benghazi rather than in Tripoli that night.

Obama did not lie to people and he did not try to fool people or use the situation for political gain. If you watch the Rose Garden videos, you realize that. I think his statement was hard for us to understand. Knowing the facts in retrospect, Obama was very candid.

This was one of those situations in which the public was thinking about the demonstrations about the movie and therefore expected the Benghazi incident to be related to the movie. It was a false assumption on the part of the public and possibly Fox News, but it was not due to Obama's statements. As for our Ambassador to the UN's statements on the Sunday talk show, who cares? She probably was simply misinformed for the same reason that people like Glenn Greenwald and Fox News are misinformed. They haven't listened to the Rose Garden speeches since they were given.

Question your assumptions. Glenn Greenwald should know to do that better than anyone.

[MrScorpio]

18. The expression on Joy Reid's face when GG was asking for an investigation was telling indeed nt

[sulphurdunn]

22. Greenwald won.

[Proletariatprincess]

31. He sure did.

He left Maher in the dust and it was good to see.

[another_liberal]

39. Creating your own reality?

You must be channeling Karl Rove, eh?

[sulphurdunn]

40. Not Rove,

just reason. Reasoning is what thinking people use to arrive at conclusions based upon evidence. It precludes the likelihood of creating ones "own reality." People who manufacture their own reality and then accuse others of doing the same thing are engaged in a psychological behavior called projection. You should look it up.

[another_liberal]

41. Why should I do that?

I'm quite familiar with the term.

More to the point, Mr. Greenwald was simply carrying water for the right wing demagogues who are determined to bring down this President any damn way they can.

[RoccoR5955]

26. Thank you Glenn.

You are 1000% correct!
The US should take a good part of the blame for the violence in the world.
Religions should take the rest of it!

[Proletariatprincess]

28. And you are also 1000% correct, RoccoR5955

Glen Greenwald handed Maher his head in that exchange. He is a brilliant man. Maher is an entertainer.
Truth did carried this story too and the discussion in comments is really quite good. This discussion, however, is not. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to read this stuff.

[gateley]

33. I think Maher is more than an entertainer -- I think he's truly interested and involved.

He's not always right, and at times he doesn't get it, but I think his intention is good.

[Proletariatprincess]

34. I am greatful for Real Time and Bill Maher

It is one of the only intelligent discussion shows on commercial tv. In fact, I can't think of another except on PBS. Maher actually brings people on with whom he may disagree and that leads to interesting dialog. It is also very entertaining. But Maher is no great intellect like Glen Greenwald.

[sulphurdunn]

35. I agree.

His failing lies in continuing a defense of his position after it has become untenable in the face of contrary evidence. Of course, that's a problem most of us have.

[burnodo]

36. Maher airs a show

(and has aired a show) here people are literally allowed to think and talk outside the box. I'll always give Maher credit for that, even if I don't agree with him on some of his positions.

[gateley]

32. I think Greenwald brought up some interesting -- and hard to swallow -- truths.

About how we get involved with the dictator (propping up Mubarak all those years) while cheering on the rebels.

And another good point was raised -- that we assume the rebels want freedom and justice for all (American Democracy! :patriot , when often they actually want to impose Sharia law.

Interesting and thought provoking discussion -- thanks for posting this clip!