danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I do, however, stand by the implication that some - in Congress and without - are pursuing the issue in the hope that it will end up with a means to blame Obama.

Hey, hold whatever implausible theory you like.

Let's see...

Oh, I know you're going to show some real nuts in Congress . . . or not. Well, some crazy right-wingers then . . . or not. You're grasping at straws, as we shall see.

Nutbars at Breitbart.com
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... r-Benghazi

He's not really a nutbar. He's certainly not a member of Congress. What did the Colonel say?

All the President had to say within the first two hours while being briefed by the Secretary of Defense was, “Send in a response force.” This command, followed by his signature on a paper called Cross Border Authority, would have ordered the Department of Defense to do everything and anything to save lives in Benghazi, Libya.

Three and a half years earlier, on April 9, 2009, President Obama had done exactly that when pirates hijacked an American flagged merchant ship, Maersk Alabama, sailing off the coast of Somalia. In this earlier incident, the President made the right decision within hours to allow SEAL Team Six the time to plan and go. In the end, we all witnessed a textbook successful rescue operation.

Yeah, that's crazy. Someone ELSE should have made the call to help the guys in Benghazi. Wait, what?

His point is spot on: only one person could have ordered a response when the consulate was attacked. He didn't.

Obama could have said to the Pentagon, "Get whatever we've got in the area there ASAP." He didn't.

Note well: I'm not talking about the obvious lack of preparation. I'm simply saying the President COULD have ordered something. He didn't.

He could have fired someone for not securing the compound, or for not preparing for potential attacks in the region on 9-freaking-11, but he didn't.

Hunt also wrote:

When the first shot was fired in Benghazi, no one knew how long the fight would last. Subsequent government claims saying we could not get there within the seven-plus hours that the tragedy lasted are specious at best and an outright lie at worst. We did not even care enough to try; that fact alone should make all Americans who mourn the loss of four of our countrymen very angry.

This ultimate Presidential control—the ability to bring armed American forces to bear anywhere in the world within hours—has existed for over 25 years. It exists precisely because of past mistakes and embarrassing moments brought to us by various governmental agencies, congresses, and presidents.

Since September 11th, 2012, we have been treated to a tractor-trailer load of misdirection, disingenuous speeches, television appearances, and outright lying by public officials at every level of the government of the United States of America.

All of that is true. Further, Mr. Hunt does not mention a desire for a Congressional investigation to nail Obama, which is what you claimed. So, 0-1.

Allen West
http://conservativetribune.com/west-oba ... d-treason/

This is even worse. It's not even written by Mr. West, save one small snippet (which I'll get to in a moment). Here's the list of allegations:

The claims, as made by Allen West’s source, leads one to

1. The attackers were members of the terrorist group and al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia.
2. Chris Stevens did request increased security, but was denied.
3. Members of the martyrs of 17 February Brigade opened the gates for the terrorists, then fled.
4. Witnesses are being threatened with losing their pensions if they dare speak out.
5 A gunrunning operation was taking place at Benghazi. The United States was supplying weapons to radical Islamists who were fighting against Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi.
6 The CIA was participating in a weapons buy-back program that involved shipping weapons from Libya to Islamist forces in Syria by way of Turkey.

Most of that is common knowledge now. I don't know about the gates being opened by the Martyrs Brigade, but that's pretty minor. In any case, none of it deals with Obama.

Now, the one bit from West:

Benghazi and the operations in Libya are shrouded in a fog of lies, deceit, manipulation, threats, intimidation, coercion, abandonment, and worst of all, potentially treason.

I think that's all pretty clear, save for the treason. I'm not sure that could be pinned on anyone. Certainly, people were derelict in their duties or the attack would not have succeeded so easily.

However, President Obama is not mentioned by West--not here anyway. 0-2.

one of the many hearings
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 06043.html

The only allegation against Obama in the article:

Speaking before the hearing's start, Mr Chaffetz said he believed the White House and the State Department had worked together to resist calls for increased security in Benghazi. "It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department, from Secretary Clinton to President Obama's White House," Mr Chaffetz said. "My personal opinion is that they wanted the appearance of normalisation in Libya, and that putting up barbed wire on our facility would lead to the wrong impression."

I think that's fair. In other words, we really don't know why the consulate was not more secure, do we? If you know a reason contra to desiring to appear "normal," feel free to have out with it. Still, no wild accusation against Obama nor a call for impeachment. 0-3.

To a section of Republicans, this is about being able to blame and impeach Obama. This is not even implausible, it is demonstrable.

Well, you might want to actually DEMONSTRATE it then. As it is, you're morphing into rickyp, posting links that have precious little to do with your blather.

And, sorry, the dumbest members of Congress are Democrats. I can prove it if you like. Google "Hank Johnson Guam."

Now, that, bbauska, is "whataboutery". It's not even relevant.

Your entire post was irrelevant.



Happy Thanksgiving! Please come back when you can muster a coherent argument.

This article is a bit old (6 months) but has anything changed on Benghazi in that time? It covers it pretty well. http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... -wa/199208

freeman3 wrote:This article is a bit old (6 months) but has anything changed on Benghazi in that time? It covers it pretty well. http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... -wa/199208

1. We already know Mike Morell changed the talking points. And, there has been at least one email from Ben Rhodes released since the article you posted:

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

2. From your article:

Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible. [The Huffington Post, 2/7/13]

If true, why were the President's orders disobeyed? Your article claims resources were sent from Tripoli. Okay, but clearly there weren't enough. We still don't know who made the decision to leave the consulate so poorly defended, particularly in light of the well-known terror activity in the area.

From your article:

AP: Six-Member Quick Reaction Team And 60 Libyan Militiamen In Benghazi Responded To The Attack. The AP reported that a "six-member quick reaction security team arrived on the scene from its compound across town, the officials said. About 60 Libyan militiamen accompanied the team, and it again tried to secure a perimeter around [Ambassador Chris] Stevens' building, taking turns searching inside." [Associated Press, 10/10/12, via The Denver Post]

Libyan militia? Like the ones who abandoned the compound in the first place?

Again, clearly not ready for any kind of attack, which is shocking in and of itself.

3. "Secretary Panetta Said U.S. Military Did Not Have Enough Information In Time To Act"

Wow. First, 9/11 falls on the same day every year, yes? Preparation was virtually non-existent.

Second, you start people moving immediately. They can always be called back. As Colonel Hunt said, when the attack started, NO ONE knew how long it would last. You have to start a response right away.

I think the Select Committee will do its work well. Gowdy won't press ahead if there is nothing new.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I do, however, stand by the implication that some - in Congress and without - are pursuing the issue in the hope that it will end up with a means to blame Obama.

Hey, hold whatever implausible theory you like.

Let's see...

Oh, I know you're going to show some real nuts in Congress . . . or not. Well, some crazy right-wingers then . . . or not. You're grasping at straws, as we shall see.

Please learn to read English. I said "in Congress and without"

You know what 'without' means in that context? Clearly not, as you seem to assume I only meant Congressmembers.

Look, it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that the real target of all these Benghazi accusations from Republicans is the President. I didn't even mention the impeachment calls.

danivon wrote:
You know what 'without' means in that context? Clearly not, as you seem to assume I only meant Congressmembers.

You're losing it--your grip. In context or out of context, you did not show ONE member of Congress. If you can't, then why include them in your statement at all? Clearly, you meant there were people in both groups--in Congress and outside of it. Keep ranting, but all you're showing is the vapidity of your argument.

Look, it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that the real target of all these Benghazi accusations from Republicans is the President. I didn't even mention the impeachment calls.

As someone right of most of Congress, I disagree. I do think it would be "right" for someone to be held accountable. Do I think the President is directly responsible? No. Hillary? Probably not. However, so far, the only people responsible are . . . well, no one. Someone made life-ending decisions and no one got more than a light wrist-slap.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:
You know what 'without' means in that context? Clearly not, as you seem to assume I only meant Congressmembers.

You're losing it--your grip. In context or out of context, you did not show ONE member of Congress.

Senator Lindsey Graham, and Rep Jason Chaffetz:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/sen-lindsey ... 41286.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... 60-minutes (in which he basically admits that the evidence he bases his 'proof' on was unsound but refuses to stop trying to block nominees anyway)

http://www.lindseygraham.com/release-gr ... ador-rice/
"Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -benghazi/
In which Chaffetz very carefully claims not to be seeking the one thing he's not ruling out as the end game. He also gets quite animated when any evidence comes up that he can leap on as evidence against the White House.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:
You know what 'without' means in that context? Clearly not, as you seem to assume I only meant Congressmembers.

You're losing it--your grip. In context or out of context, you did not show ONE member of Congress.

Senator Lindsey Graham, and Rep Jason Chaffetz:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/sen-lindsey ... 41286.html

You're wrong. Graham said Obama was lying. That is demonstrable. Obama knew it was not about the video, yet made a number of different claims, including blaming the video. That's lying.

Further, let's go back to your ORIGINAL charge:

danivon wrote:
I do, however, stand by the implication that some - in Congress and without - are pursuing the issue in the hope that it will end up with a means to blame Obama.

They do not need to "pursue" it (meaning hold more investigations) to prove that. It is public record.

http://www.lindseygraham.com/release-graham-responds-to-president-obama-on-benghazi-and-ambassador-rice/
"Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack."

Again, doesn't get to the "need" for further investigation.

Obama IS responsible. He and/or his underlings were informed Benghazi was a hotbed of terrorist activity. They did nothing. They knew the consulate had been attacked. They did nothing. They knew the British ambassador had survived an assassination attempt. They did nothing. They knew the UK and the IRC left. They did nothing. They knew it was 9/11. They knew about Cairo. They did NOTHING.

That's what the President is responsible for. It may not be his "fault" as in he should have prevented it, but it's his responsibility to be be prepared for what can be reasonably anticipated. He failed. Period.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/chaffetz-doesnt-rule-out-impeachment-for-obama-over-benghazi/
In which Chaffetz very carefully claims not to be seeking the one thing he's not ruling out as the end game. He also gets quite animated when any evidence comes up that he can leap on as evidence against the White House.

So what? Why should he "rule out" impeachment? That's not the same as "pursuing" impeachment.

You've still not shown one GOP member of Congress who is doing what you say.

Of course, you could be reasonable and just admit you overstated things.

I'm not holding my breath.

Obama IS responsible. He and/or his underlings were informed Benghazi was a hotbed of terrorist activity. They did nothing. They knew the consulate had been attacked. They did nothing. They knew the British ambassador had survived an assassination attempt. They did nothing. They knew the UK and the IRC left. They did nothing. They knew it was 9/11. They knew about Cairo. They did NOTHING.

but of course you don't blame Obama. Got it.

danivon wrote:

Obama IS responsible. He and/or his underlings were informed Benghazi was a hotbed of terrorist activity. They did nothing. They knew the consulate had been attacked. They did nothing. They knew the British ambassador had survived an assassination attempt. They did nothing. They knew the UK and the IRC left. They did nothing. They knew it was 9/11. They knew about Cairo. They did NOTHING.

but of course you don't blame Obama. Got it.

Of course you don't. But, the observant reader grasps the difference between "responsible to anticipate and to respond" versus "responsible for the attack." Obama is guilty of hiring inept people and then participating in deceiving the American people for electoral purposes. However, he had nothing directly to do with the deaths of those in Benghazi. He is responsible for the negligence that preceded it.

You go, Hillary!

The whole post is well-worth reading. Hillary was running a mini-CIA.

Oh, and she knew about all the trouble around Benghazi before the attack and did . . . nothing.

Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal’s account.

The emails, which were posted on the internet in 2013, also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya’s civil war raged in 2011.

Blumenthal’s emails to Clinton, which were directed to her private email account, include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations. They came to light after a hacker broke into Blumenthal’s account and have taken on new significance in light of the disclosure that she conducted State Department and personal business exclusively over an email server that she controlled and kept secret from State Department officials and which only recently was discovered by congressional investigators.

It also seems that Hillary’s private intelligence operation penetrated other intel groups, including those of allies. On one level, one could be impressed with the organization of such an effort — if it had led to better choices. Instead, the hacked e-mail trail here has Hillary’s own network warning her of a string of terrorist attacks in Benghazi three weeks before the attack on our consulate. By that time, of course, the US facility had already been hit by a bomb attack two months prior to these warnings, yet Hillary and Patrick Kennedy did nothing to boost security or get American personnel out of harms’ way. Why, with these warnings ringing in her ears, did she allow US Ambassador Chris Stevens to come to Benghazi at all?

I would encourage everyone to read this. It puts the email situation in a whole new light.

fate

The whole post is well-worth reading. Hillary was running a mini-CIA

You could have at least cut and paste from the original journalist..
Who does say this ...

The hacked information is silent on whether the intelligence allegedly gathered by Mr. Blumenthal was done at Mrs. Clinton’s request, and it does not show any responses from Mrs. Clinton.

It also isn't authenticated .

Although it doesn't stop them from making a hundred speculative claims.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3VmqSFeaf

the real source of the hacking....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer

rickyp wrote:fate

The whole post is well-worth reading. Hillary was running a mini-CIA

You could have at least cut and paste from the original journalist..
Who does say this ...

The hacked information is silent on whether the intelligence allegedly gathered by Mr. Blumenthal was done at Mrs. Clinton’s request, and it does not show any responses from Mrs. Clinton.

Pot and Kettle, Hmmm?

rickyp wrote:fate

The whole post is well-worth reading. Hillary was running a mini-CIA

You could have at least cut and paste from the original journalist..
Who does say this ...

The hacked information is silent on whether the intelligence allegedly gathered by Mr. Blumenthal was done at Mrs. Clinton’s request, and it does not show any responses from Mrs. Clinton.

It also isn't authenticated .

Although it doesn't stop them from making a hundred speculative claims.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3VmqSFeaf

the real source of the hacking....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer

The source of the hacking is a legal matter, not a political one. Truth is truth.

So the repeated Benghazi investigations had a purpose? So says Rep. Kevin McCarthy....

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” he said. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable.”

The consequences of McCarthy’s sleight of tongue can’t be overstated. It wasn’t just a Washington gaffe — when someone accidentally tells the truth. It was a self-inflicted, potentially fatal wound, not just to McCarthy but to Republicans more broadly, including those running for president.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” he said. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable.”

The consequences of McCarthy’s sleight of tongue can’t be overstated. It wasn’t just a Washington gaffe — when someone accidentally tells the truth. It was a self-inflicted, potentially fatal wound, not just to McCarthy but to Republicans more broadly, including those running for president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html