rickyp wrote:Maybe you could get Morrell or Panetta to explain why the first 13 tries at getting a comprehensive examination of Ben Ghazi failed....

Ah yes, the rickyp we all know and love: if an argument is shown to be flaccid, repeat it ad nauseum.

Leon Panetta was Secretary of Defense at the time of the attack. He thinks this investigation is a good thing to do.

Mike Morell was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the attack. He thinks this investigation would be a good thing to do.

Yet, you treat them like partisan GOP hacks. Brilliant.

Wouldn't you think that one of these committees could have accomplished the feat.
Maybe you could also get them to explain why the 14th attempt will be successful. Something more believable than more time. or no time limits.
The problem is that there are answers in the previous 13 hearings. Its just that republicans won't accept them because they don't suit their political view.

Panetta is a life-long, dedicated, Democrat. I don't know Morell's affiliation. They gave a rationale for the investigation.

Further, it's not that Republicans are rejecting the previous hearings. They are saying they were not conclusive--as evidenced by the FOIA lawsuit that produced the Rhodes email. The Administration claims it has been cooperative, but the record contradicts that.

Again, what do Democrats have to fear? If the Administration did everything a reasonable and prudent person would do, what's the problem?

What are you worried about? If there's no there there, then the GOP tilts at windmills and nothing happens.

fate

Ah yes, the rickyp we all know and love: if an argument is shown to be flaccid, repeat it ad nauseum

Replace the word argument with the phrase "investigative hearing".

I doubt that the congressional hearings are ever effective. They aren't designed to get to truth. They designed to produce sound bites and political hay.
I'm sure Panetta hasn't considered the difference between what he calls "an investigation to lay put the full story to the public" and the train wrecks that most Congressional hearings turn out to be....

rickyp wrote:fate

Ah yes, the rickyp we all know and love: if an argument is shown to be flaccid, repeat it ad nauseum

Replace the word argument with the phrase "investigative hearing".

I doubt that the congressional hearings are ever effective. They aren't designed to get to truth. They designed to produce sound bites and political hay.
I'm sure Panetta hasn't considered the difference between what he calls "an investigation to lay put the full story to the public" and the train wrecks that most Congressional hearings turn out to be....

Ooh, excellent point! I mean, come on, what does Panetta know that you don't? I mean, hey, it's not like he knows much about congressional hearings, right?

Leon Edward Panetta (born June 28, 1938) is an American statesman, lawyer, and professor. He served in the Barack Obama administration as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2009 to 2011 and as Secretary of Defense from 2011 to 2013. An American Democrat, Panetta was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993, served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1993 to 1994 and as President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997. He is the founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy, served as Distinguished Scholar to Chancellor Charles B. Reed of the California State University System and professor of public policy at Santa Clara University.

Wait. So, he served 16 years in the House? He was Chief of Staff for Clinton? He helped negotiate the balanced budget?

Oh, so maybe he does know more than you.

How shocking.

Panetta expressed concern that the investigation would be politicized and a legitimate effort...You know, Pelosi after Democrats won control of the House refused to have investigations into the Bush Administrations' use of torture, rendition, and the invasion of Iraq. Obama did the same thing when he was elected. What if the Democrats behaved like Republicans and launched endless investigations with regard to national security for political gain (and the Democrats had far greater cause than Republicans do)?

freeman3 wrote:Panetta expressed concern that the investigation would be politicized and a legitimate effort...You know, Pelosi after Democrats won control of the House refused to have investigations into the Bush Administrations' use of torture, rendition, and the invasion of Iraq. Obama did the same thing when he was elected. What if the Democrats behaved like Republicans and launched endless investigations with regard to national security for political gain (and the Democrats had far greater cause than Republicans do)?

Oh please. The reason Obama didn't launch an investigation is because that would have been the subject of every news show as long as the investigation ran. No one would have been talking about the things he really cared about. Besides that, he would eventually have had to answer questions like, "Mr. President why did you investigate enhance interrogation methods like they were criminal, but you have no compunction about killing Americans without a trial?"

If this indeed turns out to be a fruitless witch hunt, that won't redound to the GOP's credit.

Again, if the truth is on the Administration's side, they have nothing to fear. This isn't an independent counsel, like the Democrats used to nail Scooter Libby for doing nothing.

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, if the truth is on the Administration's side, they have nothing to fear. This isn't an independent counsel, like the Democrats used to nail Scooter Libby for doing nothing.

One count of obstructing justice, two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements are not 'nothing'. Libby's charges were put before a grand jury, so the Special Counsel went through them rather than just raise the charges.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, if the truth is on the Administration's side, they have nothing to fear. This isn't an independent counsel, like the Democrats used to nail Scooter Libby for doing nothing.

One count of obstructing justice, two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements are not 'nothing'. Libby's charges were put before a grand jury, so the Special Counsel went through them rather than just raise the charges.

I disagree. And, if there had been no Special Prosecutor, Libby could not have committed the "crimes." He had nothing to do with "leaking" Plame's name. They knew who did and . . . did nothing to him. It was political and a sham.

An interesting comparison between the Beirut Bombing and Ben Ghazi.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f- ... -312612864

rickyp wrote:An interesting comparison between the Beirut Bombing and Ben Ghazi.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f- ... -312612864

The most interesting part:

The American press pilloried President Reagan for putting the marines and servicemen in harm's way without ammunition or any clear mission during a violent civil war in a country rife with sophisticated suicide bombers and a history of successful attacks against Americans. CBS Evening News reported,

It's interesting because the press has been late to report critically about Benghazi. In fact, CBS all but shut up its main investigator, Sharyl Attkisson.

And, it's just shocking that RFK Jr. would assert Democrats are/were apolitical and patriotic, which the GOP is political and (presumably) less than patriotic.

Yeah, it's a "comparison."

Did Reagan blame a video? Did he send a flunky out to lie on every AM Sunday show?

#epicfail

fate

Did Reagan blame a video? Did he send a flunky out to lie on every AM Sunday show?

Reagan's response to press badgering about the absence of ammunition and protective barriers only stirred public anger about the president's lack of concern for troop safety. Reagan's explanation for the blunder seemed flippant, "Anyone who ever had a kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would be."

Ben Ghazi was a failure Fate. But not the failure that the Beirut intervention or the Contra Arms failures were ...
Kennedy's point is that the Democrats at the time didn't form 13 or 14 investigations to make political stage craft.
They could have, and it would have had a deliterious affect on US foreign policy goals and domestic politics for years...

rickyp wrote:Ben Ghazi was a failure Fate. But not the failure that the Beirut intervention or the Contra Arms failures were ...
Kennedy's point is that the Democrats at the time didn't form 13 or 14 investigations to make political stage craft.
They could have, and it would have had a deliterious affect on US foreign policy goals and domestic politics for years...

Yeah, but Reagan's administration had the guts to cut and run out of Lebanon, so that was ok.

rickyp wrote:fate

Did Reagan blame a video? Did he send a flunky out to lie on every AM Sunday show?

Reagan's response to press badgering about the absence of ammunition and protective barriers only stirred public anger about the president's lack of concern for troop safety. Reagan's explanation for the blunder seemed flippant, "Anyone who ever had a kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would be."

Ben Ghazi was a failure Fate. But not the failure that the Beirut intervention or the Contra Arms failures were ...
Kennedy's point is that the Democrats at the time didn't form 13 or 14 investigations to make political stage craft.
They could have, and it would have had a deliterious (sic) affect (sic) on US foreign policy goals and domestic politics for years...

Obama has had a deleterious effect on US foreign policy goals and domestic policy that will last for years.

Kennedy's point is a clumsily-made political one. You might find it spot-on, and so will Kool-Aid drinkers everywhere. Have another cup!

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:Ben Ghazi was a failure Fate. But not the failure that the Beirut intervention or the Contra Arms failures were ...
Kennedy's point is that the Democrats at the time didn't form 13 or 14 investigations to make political stage craft.
They could have, and it would have had a deliterious affect on US foreign policy goals and domestic politics for years...

Yeah, but Reagan's administration had the guts to cut and run out of Lebanon, so that was ok.

No, it wasn't okay.

Yes, he did come to his senses too late.

No, the two events are not the same.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:Ben Ghazi was a failure Fate. But not the failure that the Beirut intervention or the Contra Arms failures were ...
Kennedy's point is that the Democrats at the time didn't form 13 or 14 investigations to make political stage craft.
They could have, and it would have had a deliterious affect on US foreign policy goals and domestic politics for years...

Yeah, but Reagan's administration had the guts to cut and run out of Lebanon, so that was ok.

No, it wasn't okay.

Yes, he did come to his senses too late.

No, the two events are not the same.

Mainly because he wasn't hounded for the rest of his term of office by opponents desperate to tag any blame on him for what happened in Beirut. Despite the fact that there were warnings from Beirut about what might happen if the US sent troops in to back up the Israeli invasion (oh, sorry, as 'peacekeepers')

danivon wrote:[Mainly because he wasn't hounded for the rest of his term of office by opponents desperate to tag any blame on him for what happened in Beirut. Despite the fact that there were warnings from Beirut about what might happen if the US sent troops in to back up the Israeli invasion (oh, sorry, as 'peacekeepers')

Mainly? Prove it.

this is "whataboutery" of the first degree. Even if everything rickyp says, er, sorry, RFK Jr says is true, it is not an excuse for Obama's team being unprepared. See, there's two major advantages this team of jackasses had and chose to ignore:

1. There had already been disturbances at embassies in the Arab region THAT day.
2. It was 9/11.

So, let's say Benghazi was all about the video (in spite of the evidence to the contrary). That should have been a major tip to evacuate the building and start rushing assets to the region--preparing for the worst-case scenario. Instead, it was business as usual.

Reagan isn't President.

We still don't know the truth about Benghazi.

Have a nice day.