Benghazi

[Tiberius]

Almost a week with nothing on this (hyped) scandal? When's the impeachment?

[3rdnlng]

Almost a week with nothing on this (hyped) scandal? When's the impeachment?

 

What, did you bring it up just for laughs?

[3rdnlng]

http://news.yahoo.com/house-gop-pursues-benghazi-stand-down-probe-190553319--politics.html?.tsrc=warhol

[Keukasmallies]

Almost a week with nothing on this (hyped) scandal? When's the impeachment?

 

The Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

[B-Man]

The Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

 

Not so fast.....................................lol

 

[3rdnlng]

http://www.conservative-daily.com/2014/04/01/democrats-say-benghazi-investigation-is-pointless/

Whenever there is a scandal that threatens the President’s regime, the Democrats pretend to be alarmed and half-heartedly join the investigation. But, once a certain amount of time passes and the scandal falls from the headlines, the Democrats revert to their real selves and call for a premature end to the hearings and investigations.

On September 11, 2012, armed terrorists stormed our consulate in Benghazi, Libya and killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith. The Obama administration didn’t even try to save them. Then, when it came time to tell the American people what happened, rather than explain the truth and admit that the administration failed to stop a terrorist attack, Barack Obama and his officials went out and lied that the attack was a “protest-gone-wrong.”

We are so close to getting to the bottom of this scandal, and the Democrats are trying to pull the rug out from under us!

This is happening right now with respect to the investigation into the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terror attack. All 17 Democrats on the House Government Oversight Committee are calling on Darrell Issa to put an end to the Benghazi “witch hunt” on the eve of questioning the CIA official at the heart of drafting the talking points used by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice to deceive the country and the world!

We are one day away from getting to the bottom of this; from finally uncovering who chose to lie to the American people about the causes of the attack and why they did so. The Democrats realize that the end is near for them, and they are trying to pressure the House Republicans into giving up the investigation!

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Everyone knows it was that shadowy YouTube guy. If only emperor Obama could be allowed to restrict this silly free speech thing then idiots wouldn't be able to make bad YouTube videos that lead to attacks against us. All we have to do is ban free speech.

[B-Man]

CIA officer confirmed no protests before misleading Benghazi account given

Washington Times

 

Original Article

 

 

 

Despite ‘Direct, Credible’ Evidence on Benghazi, WH Put Out ‘Politically Convenient’ Story

[Deranged Rhino]

CIA officer confirmed no protests before misleading Benghazi account given

Washington Times

 

Original Article

 

 

 

Despite ‘Direct, Credible’ Evidence on Benghazi, WH Put Out ‘Politically Convenient’ Story

Morell refuted the accounts of a coverup for political gains today. But good job posting an article from 2 days before his open testimony.

 

While Morell acknowledged the CIA could have done a “better job” on some aspects of its analysis of Benghazi. The former top intelligence official also said that none of the agency’s flaws “reflect any intention to mislead Congress or the American people or any intention to provide political benefit to anyone.”

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/02/cia-strikes-back-on-benghazi.html

Edited April 2, 2014 by GreggyT

[Doc]

It was purely political. And as a result, they didn't even try to save those 4 men. That's lower than low.

[Tiberius]

It was purely political. And as a result, they didn't even try to save those 4 men. That's lower than low.

What?? You are saying they ignored an attack in progress so the White House could spin it later?

 

 

This is your brain on drugs...

[IDBillzFan]

What?? You are saying they ignored an attack in progress so the White House could spin it later?

 

 

This is your brain on drugs...

 

The WH and State Dept. left four people to die in Benghazi because they were too stupid to take the necessary precautions REQUESTED by the people in Benghazi on the eve of 9/11.

 

There's no spinning that. They left them for dead. Period.

 

That's right. We hear you laughing. We know how funny you found this whole event.

[Deranged Rhino]

It was purely political. And as a result, they didn't even try to save those 4 men. That's lower than low.

That's bull ****. The only ones making this political are folks like you. It's not enough that 4 people died serving their country, but because it happened while a Dem was running for reelection the GOP made the tragedy political while claiming it was the other side doing so.

 

The irony of your statement is so thick you can't even see it yourself.

 

The WH and State Dept. left four people to die in Benghazi because they were too stupid to take the necessary precautions REQUESTED by the people in Benghazi on the eve of 9/11.

This is the issue that should be debated, not the political aftermath which has no bearing on the realities of the event.

Edited April 2, 2014 by GreggyT

[DC Tom]

That's bull ****. The only ones making this political are folks like you. It's not enough that 4 people died serving their country, but because it happened while a Dem was running for reelection the GOP made the tragedy political while claiming it was the other side doing so.

 

The irony of your statement is so thick you can't even see it yourself.

 

 

This is the issue that should be debated, not the political aftermath which has no bearing on the realities of the event.

 

I'd agree, except that the White House compounded their original error with outright mendacity in an attempt to save face.

 

THAT'S the political issue.

[B-Man]

That's bull ****. The only ones making this political are folks like you. It's not enough that 4 people died serving their country, but because it happened while a Dem was running for reelection the GOP made the tragedy political while claiming it was the other side doing so.

 

The irony of your statement is so thick you can't even see it yourself.

 

 

 

 

Your response is quite "ironic" also

 

the problem with your statement is that the original political response was by the campaigning Obama administration, not the the GOP

 

and certainly not the muted statement put out by Gov. Romney.

 

 

 

I'd agree, except that the White House compounded their original error with outright mendacity in an attempt to save face.

 

THAT'S the political issue.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

This is the issue that should be debated, not the political aftermath which has no bearing on the realities of the event.

 

But they do, because the blatant lies about protesters and Youtube video were created as a result of them leaving four people to die.

 

And let me add that as a person who tap dances on the razor's edge of imply and infer, Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing after the event with a vague "terrorism" threat. It gave him cover even while he sent Susan Rice to tell everyone it was a video. Even when he mentions the video when talking to the UN. He can imply "Oh, I said it was terrorism" and some consider it to be enough.

 

They screwed up, and lied about it, so the lie does play a role...but not near the role their incompetence played by leaving them for dead.

[Deranged Rhino]

I'd agree, except that the White House compounded their original error with outright mendacity in an attempt to save face.

 

THAT'S the political issue.

...Which EVERY administration in the history of history has done when they fall on their face. I have no problem with calling the WH out for that, but that's not what is at the core of the argument on the right. It's that either Obama and/or Clinton knowingly and willingly let Americans die for political gain -- that's the headline that the right has turned this issue into. Why? To win points in the general election and '16 election.

 

And the ones who are so high and mighty on here crying about dead Americans while politically abusing their memories is as shameful, if not more so, than the original offense.

 

 

They screwed up, and lied about it, so the lie does play a role...but not near the role their incompetence played by leaving them for dead.

And yet when over 3,000 Americans died, on US soil, and the President sat in a room full of kids doing nothing while cameras rolled, I bet you didn't have the same criticism. Even though both the 9/11 commission and every report that's come out since highlights the repeated warnings of the attack that were missed by both Clinton's outgoing administration and W's incoming...

 

That's why I can't take you, B-Man, or Doc seriously on Benghazi. You're parsing your loyalties to dead Americans on purely political grounds. It's as shameful as what you're slamming Obama's administration for now. It's hypocritical and reeks of politics.

 

Focus on the issue -- what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. If there are proven to be people criminally negligent, then by all means unleash the dogs of war.

Edited April 2, 2014 by GreggyT

[TakeYouToTasker]

...Which EVERY administration in the history of history has done when they fall on their face. I have no problem with calling the WH out for that, but that's not what is at the core of the argument on the right. It's that either Obama and/or Clinton knowingly and willingly let Americans die for political gain -- that's the headline that the right has turned this issue into. Why? To win points in the general election and '16 election.

 

And the ones who are so high and mighty on here crying about dead Americans while politically abusing their memories is as shameful, if not more so, than the original offense.

Greg:

 

The Administration politicized the event when they lied about what caused it for the purposes of protecting a carefully constructed political narative during the debates.

 

Now, don't get my wrong; I'm no friend to the Democrats or the Republicans, but the Republicans have the right of this.

 

Once the event had been turned political, there is no turning back.

[IDBillzFan]

And yet when over 3,000 Americans died, on US soil, and the President sat in a room full of kids doing nothing while cameras rolled, I bet you didn't have the same criticism. Even though both the 9/11 commission and every report that's come out since highlights the repeated warnings of the attack that were missed by both Clinton's outgoing administration and W's incoming.

 

Here's the difference. When 9/11 happened, the president didn't send his "people" out to lie about what happened to the entire free world for weeks on end.

 

And without spending a lot of time on a very cliched criticism, I'm certain the country would have been more comforted if they saw the President in a room full of children quickly panic and run out the door. How freaking ridiculous.

 

We were kinda having a good conversation there, but to compare this administration lying about how they left four people for dead to how Bush reacted to hearing about 9/11 is going full gatorman.

 

And you should never go full gatorman.

 

Once the event had been turned political, there is no turning back.

 

Yep. The WH brought this upon themselves with incompetence and lies. Period.

Edited April 2, 2014 by LABillzFan

[Doc]

What?? You are saying they ignored an attack in progress so the White House could spin it later?

 

 

This is your brain on drugs...

If they didn't ignore it, exactly what did they do during it?

That's bull ****. The only ones making this political are folks like you. It's not enough that 4 people died serving their country, but because it happened while a Dem was running for reelection the GOP made the tragedy political while claiming it was the other side doing so.

 

The irony of your statement is so thick you can't even see it yourself.

I'm an Independent and I voted for Barry the first time (biggest mistake of my voting life). I quickly realized he was a turd. The reality is that his sycophants are the thick ones and they have to resort to twisting themselves into pretzels to defend him, now that "it's Dubya's fault" no longer registers.

 

And yet when over 3,000 Americans died, on US soil, and the President sat in a room full of kids doing nothing while cameras rolled, I bet you didn't have the same criticism. Even though both the 9/11 commission and every report that's come out since highlights the repeated warnings of the attack that were missed by both Clinton's outgoing administration and W's incoming...

 

That's why I can't take you, B-Man, or Doc seriously on Benghazi. You're parsing your loyalties to dead Americans on purely political grounds. It's as shameful as what you're slamming Obama's administration for now. It's hypocritical and reeks of politics.

 

Focus on the issue -- what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. If there are proven to be people criminally negligent, then by all means unleash the dogs of war.

Yeah, I bought the Michael Moore "he just sat in a kingergarten classroom"/"Fahrenheit 9/11" thing. Then I realized that the first plane was thought to be an accident and he left promptly after the other one hit. Not that leaving after the first one would have done anything to prevent the other one from hitting.

 

As for the "repeated warnings," unless anyone had information about the specifics, i.e. planes leaving from Logan the morning of 9/11, it wasn't going to be prevented. The only way would have been if Clinton had taken UBL out when he had the chance.