The Shameful Politicization of the Benghazi Consulate Attack

Posts : 3520

The Shameful Politicization of the Benghazi Consulate Attack

Quote :: The Tea Party Congress, having, with Paul Ryan’s leadership, deeply cut funds for embassy security, held a hearing on Wednesday on the circumstances of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, on the US consulate in Benghazi, in which it tried to point fingers at the State Department and the Obama administration.

That’s right, the Republicans cut funds for embassy security, and now are blaming the State Department for laxity.

. . .

I frankly can’t understand what the Tea Baggers are driving at here. If their complaint is lack of consulate security, then they shouldn’t have cut the money for it.
If their complaint is that early accounts of what happened were chaotic and ultimately inaccurate, what else would they expect? When would that have not been so in the aftermath of such a disaster? As I’ve pointed out before, lots of embassy attacks occurred under Bush, including one in Athens, and I doubt they GOP even held a hearing on most of them.

. . .

Romney on the campaign trail started telling the story of an ex-Navy Seal who died in the attack, who had been stationed in a facility a mile from the consulate, wand who ran toward the danger. Romney praised his courage and Americanness, attampting to appropriate some of it for himself.

But Romney never ran toward danger in his life. He dodged the draft for Vietnam by trying to convince French people not to drink coffee or wine.

The deceased SEAL’s mother asked Romney to knock it off, saying that she doesn’t trust the GOP standard bearer.

That’s the same response Americans in general should have to the distasteful and cynical attempt on Capitol Hill to deploy Chris Stevens’ killing for narrow political gain at the polls.

And in their desperate, rushed attempt to embarrass Democrats, those fuckwit Republicans ended up revealing a secret CIA base to the world:

Quote :: When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover.

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron.

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

. . .

The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi.

Good idea. Too bad he didn’t think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN.

Great job!

Posts : 9728

Things Go Horribly Wrong For Fox News When They Ask GOP Congressman for Benghazi Evidence

Quote :

Fox News tried to push their Benghazi conspiracy theory today, but things went horribly wrong when they asked Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz for evidence and he couldn’t provide any.

Quote :: Transcript:

WALLACE: Congressman Chaffetz, has the Obama admininstration blocked potential witnesses from testifying or not?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely, and more than one. We’ve asked for the non-classified version of how did these people get an attorney who has a degree of classified information, and they still haven’t given us that. No, there are people out there that wanna testify that have been suppressed.

WALLACE: But you heard the State Department person just say that nobody either a lawyer or a witness has requested to testify.

CHAFFETZ: Because they’re scared to death of what the State Department is doing to them. That’s what. Look we’re the other branch of government. They’re supposed to be able to come to congress, and be able to share this type of information. That has not happened, because the administration has suppressed. We have a person who was injured eight months ago who’s still in the hospital. They changed his name on the medical records. This is a story of the State Department doing things that haven’t been done in any other case.

WALLACE: Are you saying? Again, I want to bring in Congressman Lynch. Tell me-a direct threat, a direct act of intimidation against a potential witness?

CHAFFETZ: Yes, and I think we’ll probably…

WALLACE: Tell me one… tell what’s been said.

CHAFFETZ: There are people, more than one, that have felt intimidation from the State Department.

Notice that Chris Wallace provided Chaffetz with the perfect setup. He let him weave the conspiracy theory. Wallace never stopped him, or challenged him. But when it came time for Rep. Chaffetz to deliver the money shot, he threw up all over his own shirt.

Ever since it was revealed that Boston bombings weren’t carried out by an overseas terrorist group, Fox News has gone back to relentlessly pushing Benghazi conspiracies. It has been subtle, but you can see it in Chaffetz’s remarks, the focus of the Benghazi conspiracy has shifted away from Obama and to the State Department.

Their conspiracy theory focus has shifted because the runaway favorite for the 2016 Democratic nomination just so happens to be the same woman who used to be Secretary of State. Fox News is only the propaganda arm. Chris Wallace did his job, but the Republican/Fox News plan to bring down Hillary Clinton with Benghazi fell flat on its face when Rep. Chaffetz has zero evidence to back up his charges.

Fox News could have gotten a week’s worth of programming out of anything that Chaffetz said, but he gave them nothing specific that they could use.

The big “news” bit of the segment quickly turned into a trainwreck, as Rep. Chaffetz’s conspiracy not could hold up even under the gentlest of scrutiny by Chris Wallace. What was supposed to be a big moment turned into a huge Fox fail that ended up proving the emptiness of their own Benghazi conspiracy.

Posts : 3520

It didn't go over very easily on Fox 'n Friends, either.

Posts : 9728

Heretic wrote:: It didn't go over very easily on Fox 'n Friends, either.

Under Dubya there were at least 5 embassy or similar attacks. Not a peep of outrage over those incidents.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Under Dubya there were at least 5 embassy or similar attacks. Not a peep of outrage over those incidents.

Which of those attacks did Bush lie about and blame on an obscure anti-Muslim video?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Under Dubya there were at least 5 embassy or similar attacks. Not a peep of outrage over those incidents.

[b]Which of those attacks did Bush lie about and blame on an obscure anti-Muslim video?

Now you're accusing Obama of lying? Please proceed lol!

Posts : 1165

Artie60438 wrote:

Heretic wrote:: It didn't go over very easily on Fox 'n Friends, either.

Under Dubya there were at least 5 embassy or similar attacks. Not a peep of outrage over those incidents.

Yes, is it not just amazing that republicans were not squealing like pigs

Quote :: Many embassies attacked during the Bush years before Benghazi

Partisan politics has so polarized America that normal, honest behavior seems to
be the oddity that stands out these days. Much ado is being made of Gov. Chris
Christie’s common sense communication with President Obama during Sandy’s
aftermath. Christie and the president working together for the good of the
citizens who elected them for that very reason is seen as spectacular when it
should have been the ordinary, the norm.
The attack of our embassy in
Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11,which resulted in four Americans being murdered, is
now used as an opportunity to gain political points. Washington Republicans and
the partisan pundits beyond have slapped on the war paint, donned the camouflage
and are armed to the hilt—out to get Obama’s blood at all cost.

Now
there is loud clamor for transparency and investigations, accusations of a
cover-up and incompetence, with those doing the talking all the while professing
to only want the truth as concerned Americans and conscientious politicians.
Give me a break. The only conscientious concern here is self-serving partisan
BS.

Where was all that concern for our men and women serving in
embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and
killings occurred?

Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the
Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?

Or in 2004
when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another
nine injured?

How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi
Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?

There is more: In
2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.

Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.

In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.

In
2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

Notice the
dates, all before the Obama administration.

Not yet convinced that all
the noise over Benghazi has nothing to do with love of countryman? How about the
biggest, most catastrophic attack and murder of Americans? As a New Yorker,
Sept. 11, 2001, is indelibly imprinted on my psyche and I’m sure on the rest of
the country. 3,000 perished in the most brutal act of terror in our recent
history—all under a Republican administration. George W. Bush and his team had
nine warnings that al-Qaida would attack within the United States, but they did
absolutely nothing. No one in that administration’s head rolled for that
stunning incompetence.

But Republicans now want President Obama’s head
for Benghazi.

Here is an excerpt from the Ninth Public Hearing of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, held Thursday
April 8, 2004, where Bush adviser Condoleezza Rice, is being questioned:

MS. RICE: I remember very well that the
president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked
to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something
that we were told we needed to do something about.

“MR.
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6
PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you
recall the title of that PDB.

MS. RICE: I believe the title was "Bin Laden
Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Now, the PDB --

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

Rice, in uncharacteristic obtuseness, for she is an academically brilliant
and accomplished woman, gave the above unbelievable answer. We all now know they
knew of imminent danger facing American citizens, but buried their head in the
proverbial sand, ostrich style. (Read the official transcript on that hearing
here: Thursday, April 8, 2004 - National Commission on
Terrorism).

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Under Dubya there were at least 5 embassy or similar attacks. Not a peep of outrage over those incidents.

Which of those attacks did Bush lie about and blame on an obscure anti-Muslim video?

Unlike your republican assholes, democrats had enough decency not to blame/attack your shit for brains moron for any of those incidents.

However he DID lie about Iraq (which led to over 4,500 dead US troops) being a threat and authorizing torture and he was called on it.
You pretend like it never happened, jack.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: However he DID lie about Iraq (which led to over 4,500 dead US troops) being a threat ....

Specifically which "he" (or "she") are you talking about?

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Posts : 1165

I'm talking about the "he" who authorized torture and made the decision to go to war based on lies, George W Bush.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: However he DID lie about Iraq (which led to over 4,500 dead US troops) being a threat ....

[b]Specifically which "he" (or "she") are you talking about?

The asshat below that decided to dress up in a flight suit.
The Shameful Politicization of the Benghazi Consulate Attack Large

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Under Dubya there were at least 5 embassy or similar attacks. Not a peep of outrage over those incidents.

Which of those attacks did Bush lie about and blame on an obscure anti-Muslim video?

That's a really a poor attempt to deflect the point. There was no concern over such incidents under Bush's watch (even despite the ever present and all powerful influence of the Liberal Media), but now Republicans are so desperate to make this administration look bad, they have no problem outing the CIA and putting valuable informants in danger in an attempt to manufacture yet another hilariously illogical conspiracy.

That should be unacceptable to any American, regardless of political affiliation.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: I'm talking about the "he" who authorized torture and made the decision to go to war based on lies, George W Bush.

Do you mean the guy who went to war based upon these lies?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Posts : 1165

Please God make it be a cover up, please, please I'm begging.

Quote :: Praying for a Benghazi Cover Up

Blog May 7,

ARI RABIN-HAVT

169

John Bolton has long been the id of the conservative foreign policy movement -- saying what all of his right wing brethren would not dare even mumble in polite company. He continued that trend yesterday on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program, telling the host during a discussion of the administration's reaction to the September 11, 2012, attack on diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya:

I'd have to say for the good of the country, I hope it is a cover up rather than the alternative, which is the Obama administration was so blind to the reality of the threat of Islamic terrorism, the continued threat from Al Qaeda... If that's the problem there's no cure for it. If it was merely a political cover-up then there can be a political cost to pay.
Bolton is claiming that the administration altered CIA talking points to suggest that the attacks came in response to an anti-Islam video -- an allegation debunked by the original draft of those talking points. But his reference to hoping for a cover-up is striking.
From the moment this attack occurred conservatives, led by the conservative media, have prayed for this to be the tipping point in their efforts to take down the Obama administration.
Conservatives like Bolton have grown frustrated with the remarkable resilience the President has had in the face of their attacks. No scandal they've trumped up has harmed the political standing of his administration.
What they don't realize is that they have created this coat of Teflon. Like the boy who cried wolf, it's impossible to take their cries of Oval Office conspiracies when credible investigations continue to debunk their claims. The results of the Accountability Review Board lead by Ambassador Tom Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, whose reputations in this matter are beyond reproach, were vital, detailing twenty-nine recommendations to avoid tragedies like Benghazi from happening in the future, while handing out blame where it was deserved.
This is unimportant to the right, who would rather pursue scalps than improvements in policy that could potentially save American lives.
Instead those on the right like John Bolton would rather continue to play the role of Ahab, hunting not for answers but to take down the President, a fact that in every instance leads them further from the truth.
Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and numerous other pseudo scandals have shown a conservative media uninterested in actual answers. Instead they simply wish that one day their prayers of a Obama scandal will come true.

Posts : 9728

The last couple of days the Planet Wingnuttia crowd has been going bonkers over a hearing to be conducted today. Idiots like Mike Huckabee are already claiming that Benghazi is "worse than Watergate" and will result in Obama having to leave office before he finishes his term. Rolling Eyes

Just the usual noise from the right and nothing more...
Why There Won’t Be Anything New In Today’s Benghazi Hearing

Quote :

Republicans are touting today’s House Oversight Committee hearing as a potential final nail in the coffin of the Obama administration’s continuing cover-up of what really happened the night a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya was attacked last September. In truth, the event is sure to be a rehash of previously debunked finger-pointing and yet another round of political posturing surrounding the tragic death of four Americans.

The GOP’s star witness at today’s hearings is the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, Gregory Hicks, who the right-wing has labeled the main Benghazi “whistle-blower.” Hicks is expected to give testimony before the panel detailing what he believes could have done above and beyond the efforts the administration expended the night of the attack, actions he claims could have saved lives:

Quote :: “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,” Hicks told House Republican investigators.

Hicks is also expected to explain to the panel that a team of special operations forces was told not to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi prior to the second wave of the attack. According to an excerpt of Hick’s testimony “[Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”

Republicans are latching onto Hicks’ testimony about the lack of military response during the attack as evidence of the administration’s negligence in protecting diplomats overseas and a resulting cover-up to avoid scrutiny. “We were certainly misled at every step of the way,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), one of the loudest voices on Benghazi, said on Monday to a surprisingly skeptical panel on Fox News.

The military has repeatedly said, however, that there were simply no air assets close enough to Benghazi that would have arrived in time to make a difference. Hicks himself admitted during his pre-hearing testimony that the nearest fighter jets were at Aviano Air Base in southern Italy, hours away from Libya with no tanker assets available for refueling purposes.

And while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) during the Senate’s last hearing on the military’s response to Benghazi scolded the Pentagon for not having assets available at the Souda Bay naval base in Crete, Greece, the fact remains that even the hour and a half from the island to Benghazi would have been too late to save Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens and communications specialist Sean Smith. Both died during the first wave of the attack, less than an hour after the Pentagon was first notified.

Likewise, despite what Fox News reports have said, U.S. forces based in Europe as part of U.S. Africa Command would not have arrived until after the second wave of attacks, which took place at the CIA annex in Benghazi hours after the first, had finished.

“The United States military, as I’ve said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service, arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world,” then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services committee in February. That hasn’t stopped conservatives from railing against the lack of cavalry riding into Benghazi at the last minute, which in turn ignores the valiant efforts from the CIA’s response team that saved lives the night of the attack.

Much of what’s to be discussed today was already covered in the State Department’s Accountability Review Board report, which was overseen by former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from trying to tear down the Board’s findings. Instead, the House GOP released its own report with a focus on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, claiming that their findings contradicted her testimony that she was unaware of requests for additional security in Libya.

Attacking Clinton seems to be the raison d’être of today’s hearings, despite lacking the authority order Defense Department assets into the field. “They’re no longer going after the White House, perhaps because the president’s not running for reelection, and they’re going after the former secretary of state, perhaps because she will be,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, explained. And, much like the rest of today’s hearing, going after Clinton in relation to Benghazi is in itself nothing new.

Posts : 3520

They are absolutely obsessed... Derangement Syndrome in full fucking overdrive.

Posts : 9728

Heretic wrote:: They are absolutely obsessed... Derangement Syndrome in full fucking overdrive.

That's why if you notice that they have so many different talking points. They have no case so they just keep throwing crap,desperately hoping that something will stick. Not calling it a terrorist attack at the beginning,the reason was a film,Susan Rice,,today's nonsense,yada,yada,yada.

Posts : 9728

As promised,much to do about nothing...
GOP Star Witnesses Debunk Right-Wing Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

Quote :: The “whistleblowers” at today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last September were supposed to break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall, in the eyes of conservatives. Instead, these witness actually served to debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi, leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP:

1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi

Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.

Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.

2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi

House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney, that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.

3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down

One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

4. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board isn’t legitimate

Republicans have been attacking the State Department’s official in-house review of the shortcomings seen before, during, and after the assault in Benghazi. That criticism prompted House Republicans to write their own report. When asked point blank about the recommendations of the Board, however, the witnesses didn’t cooperate with the GOP narrative. “Absolutely,” Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya prior to the assault in Benghazi, answered when asked if he believes implementing the recommendations would improve security. “I had an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.” Hicks, when questioned, said that while he had some issues with the process by which the Board gathered its information, he demurred on criticizing the report itself.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs sums up today's side show best...

Quote :: Review of today’s Manufactured Outrage Theater: a dismal dud. Bombshells noticeably absent. Less interesting than the trailer. If I were a wingnut I’d be feeling pretty disappointed.

Posts : 3520

Artie60438 wrote:: That's why if you notice that they have so many different talking points. They have no case so they just keep throwing crap,desperately hoping that something will stick. Not calling it a terrorist attack at the beginning,the reason was a film,Susan Rice,,today's nonsense,yada,yada,yada.

I really don't understand the point of the whole charade. There's no conceivable endgame. Do they not know it's complete bullshit? Or do they not care that it is and are just huffing and puffing for voters? Has this really been a draw to voters? What kind of mentally deficient moron is still worked up over Benghazi?

Posts : 9728

Heretic wrote:: I really don't understand the point of the whole charade. There's no conceivable endgame.

The endgame is to try and dirt up Hillary Clinton any way they can.

Quote :: Do they not know it's complete bullshit? Or do they not care that it is and are just huffing and puffing for voters?

They know damn well it's BS. Case in point...Today's circus was all about their latest "whistleblower" testifying about lack of military response. But guess who they didn't let testify Shocked

The Military! They could have explained that fighter jets were not in range,never would have arrived there in time,would have to have been refueled,and that no tankers were available.

Quote :: Has this really been a draw to voters? What kind of mentally deficient moron is still worked up over Benghazi?

I'll tell you exactly who. Monday morning I was listening to WJOB when one of their regular right-wing zealots called in to announce that in a couple of days information was going to come out and prove that Obama lied about and covered up the whole Benghazi issue. He acted as if this was a breaking news scoop and he was breathless with excitement. Dedelow thankfully cut him off and told him to call back when what he was predicting actually came true.

This guy is about as bright as a doorstop to begin with. He listens to Fox & hate radio 24/7,who have been beating this drum to death over the past few days and they convince him that his dreams (Obama impeachment} will actually come true.
Wingnut media will now frame it as if requests for military help were ignored when in actuality they weren't available. They'll also create the false impression that military fighters are like police sector cars where you can dial 911 and help is there in minutes. Unfortunately that's not how the military works.

Posts : 1165

I have come to the conclusion that conservatives are completely devoid of self awareness. Whether it's Mitt Romney singing America the Beautiful, republican imbeciles like Steve King or the clowns on Fox, they are completely clueless. They are simply not aware of how fucking stupid they look.
Stewart nails it as usual.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

"If dingleberries were diamonds I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants."

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Posts : 3520

The real lesson of Benghazi

Quote :: What’s the real lesson of Benghazi? It’s that the party-aligned press works so well for Republicans that they’ve become too lazy to bother explaining their ideas, or doing the hard work of actual oversight.

Look, it’s May, and they’ve been at this since September, and still, no one outside of the conservative information bubble has any idea what the “there” is. Never mind whether the accusations are true; no one has even bothered laying out a set of accusations that makes sense (see Marc Ambinder for more; see also also Andrew Sabl for what a real set of accusations would look like).

A conspiracy so nonsensical, that it couldn't even fly on Fox News anymore. But ultimately, logic and reason aren't part of the equation:

Quote :: With Obama, there’s no need for these scandals to make sense; the conservative press will run with them either way. And there might even be an advantage to incoherence. After all, if the accusations are gibberish, the neutral reporters will tend to ignore them — and then conservatives can go on conservative talk radio and Fox News and charge the rest of the press of ignoring these extremely important charges.

All of which means that Republican politicians have little incentive, and perhaps even some real disincentives, for doing the hard work of government oversight — or even the hard work of first-rate scandal-mongering.

Posts : 9728

What made me so confident that nothing was going to come out via Planet Wingnuttia's latest "bombshell witness"?
Benghazi Hearings Will Explode Obama – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert! By Dick Morris on May 8, 2013
Following Dick Morris on Twitter pays off again Laughing

Posts : 6988

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1&

When Myths Collide in the Capital

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 11, 2013 161 Comments

WASHINGTON

THE capital is in the throes of déjà vu and preview as it plunges back into Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”
The conservatives appearing on Benghazi-obsessed Fox News are a damage patrol with an approach that goes like this: “Lies, paranoia, subpoena, impeach, Watergate, Iran-contra.”
(Though now that the I.R.S. has confessed to targeting Tea Party groups, maybe some of the paranoia is justified.)
Welcome to a glorious spring weekend of accusation and obfuscation as Hillaryland goes up against Foxworld.
The toxic theatrics, including Karl Rove’s first attack ad against Hillary, cloud a simple truth: The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.
After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.
Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens were rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies.
The hierarchies at State and Defense had a plodding response, failing to make any superhuman effort as the siege waxed and waned over eight hours.
In an emotional Senate hearing on Wednesday, Stevens’s second-in-command, Gregory Hicks, who was frantically trying to help from 600 miles away in Tripoli, described how his pleas were denied by military brass, who said they could not scramble planes and who gave a “stand-down” order to four Special Forces officers in Tripoli who were eager to race to Benghazi.
“My reaction was that, O.K., we’re on our own,” Hicks said quietly. He said the commander of that Special Forces team told him, “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more” chutzpah “than someone in the military.”
The defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, insisted, “We quickly responded.” But they responded that they would not respond. As Emma Roller and David Weigel wrote in Slate: “The die was cast long before the attack, by the weak security at the consulate, and commanders may have decided to cut their losses rather than risking more casualties. And that isn’t a story anyone prefers to tell.”
Truth is the first casualty here when competing fiefs protect their mythologies. Some unhinged ideologues on the right cling to the mythology that Barry and Hillary are out to destroy America.
In the midst of a re-election campaign, Obama aides wanted to promote the mythology that the president who killed Osama was vanquishing terror. So they deemed it problematic to mention any possible Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi attack.
Looking ahead to 2016, Hillaryland needed to shore up the mythology that Clinton was a stellar secretary of state. Prepared talking points about the attack included mentions of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group, but the State Department got those references struck. Foggy Bottom’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, a former Cheney aide, quashed a we-told-you-so paragraph written by the C.I.A. that said the spy agency had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and had warned about five other attacks “against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy.”
Nuland fretted about “my building leadership,” and with backing from Ben Rhodes, a top White House aide, lobbied to remove those reminders from the talking points because they “could be abused by members” of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”
Hicks said that Beth Jones, an under secretary of state, bristled when he asked ask her why Susan Rice had stressed the protest over an anti-Muslim video rather than a premeditated attack — a Sunday show marathon that he said made his jaw drop. He believes he was demoted because he spoke up.
Hillary’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, also called Hicks to angrily ask why a State Department lawyer had not been allowed to monitor every meeting in Libya with Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who visited in October. (The lawyer did not have the proper security clearance for one meeting.) Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, has been a rabid Hillary critic on Fox News since the attack. Hicks said he had never before been scolded for talking to a lawmaker.
All the factions wove their own mythologies at the expense of our deepest national mythology: that if there is anything, no matter how unlikely or difficult, that we can do to try to save the lives of Americans who have volunteered for dangerous assignments, we must do it.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1&

Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected

Thanks to the wingnuts who cut their funding.

» BENGHAZI!!!
» Tinley Park attack
» Libyan Embassy Attack
» Higgs and Co. plan attack on City boards
» When Republicans Attack:Circular Firing Squad!