The Benghazi conundrum

Amerika

FatherTed wrote: »

It's as simple as partisan politics. These hearings investigating a manufactured controversy are a waste of time and money and are being exploited for political purposes.

And a lot of Americans agree with you, but polls I’ve read indicate more believe that the Obama administration attempted to cover up the Benghazi scandal with lies. Even many in the media now believe Obama, Clinton and Rice repeatedly lied about the Benghazi scandal. A congressional investigation matters if liars can make their way to top positions in our government with impunity. It matters that Americans willing to risk their lives cannot trust our government to provide resources necessary to protect them in dangerous international areas. And it matters because if our government is willing to lie and cover up the death of 4 Americans, including our Ambassador, it's reasonable to question what else is our government lying about?

Overheal

4 Americans. Tell me again how many are dead now because another administration lied about Weapons of Mass destruction?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

4 Americans. Tell me again how many are dead now because another administration lied about Weapons of Mass destruction?

Lied?

Didn’t George W Bush, British intelligence, AND the following list of Democrat's say Iraq WMD's existed?

• President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
• Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.
• Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998.
• John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.
• Al Gore, during a speech in September 2002.
• Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002.
• Governor Howard Dean, February 2003, during a speech at Drake University.
• John Kerry on "Meet the Press," after supporting legislation in 2002 specifically citing regime change in Iraq.

And you know what I find ironic... Reports are coming out that the sarin gas reportedly being used in the conflict in Syria came from Saddam Hussein. Is the media doggedly pursuing that bit of information, or are they remaining passive and silent on the matter in order to keep the “Bush Lied” mantra alive? And are many in the media ignoring the Benghazi travesty in order to keep to the line that Obama and Clinton didn’t lie?

FatherTed

Amerika wrote: »

Lied?

Didn’t George W Bush, British intelligence, AND the following list of Democrat's say Iraq WMD's existed?

• President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
• Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.
• Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998.
• John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.
• Al Gore, during a speech in September 2002.
• Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002.
• Governor Howard Dean, February 2003, during a speech at Drake University.
• John Kerry on "Meet the Press," after supporting legislation in 2002 specifically citing regime change in Iraq.

And you know what I find ironic... Reports are coming out that the sarin gas reportedly being used in the conflict in Syria came from Saddam Hussein. Is the media doggedly pursuing that bit of information, or are they remaining passive and silent on the matter in order to keep the “Bush Lied” mantra alive? And are many in the media ignoring the Benghazi travesty in order to keep to the line that Obama and Clinton didn’t lie?

Clinton & Co never acted on the WMD reports because they knew the evidence was too flimsy. Bush & Co created a war that caused thousands of lives(not to mention the cost) based on something that didn't exist.

Overheal

There have been far more lethal and damning "scandals" to be sure. Doesn't stop the media from adding "-gate" to every news snippet about impropriety in sight, and call it Wategrate times Nine THousand

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Lied?

Didn’t George W Bush, British intelligence, AND the following list of Democrat's say Iraq WMD's existed?

• President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
• Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.
• Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998.
• John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.
• Al Gore, during a speech in September 2002.
• Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002.
• Governor Howard Dean, February 2003, during a speech at Drake University.
• John Kerry on "Meet the Press," after supporting legislation in 2002 specifically citing regime change in Iraq.

And you know what I find ironic... Reports are coming out that the sarin gas reportedly being used in the conflict in Syria came from Saddam Hussein. Is the media doggedly pursuing that bit of information, or are they remaining passive and silent on the matter in order to keep the “Bush Lied” mantra alive? And are many in the media ignoring the Benghazi travesty in order to keep to the line that Obama and Clinton didn’t lie?

Congressional investigations are needed. They are supposed to be non partisan and objective though.

If there is definitive proof that people within in the Obama administration lied, they must be punished. It's only right.

However my problem with this investigation is that the conclusion was decided first. Congressional Republicans decided Clinton etc lied and have set about making the investigation prove that rather than investigating and coming to a conclusion.

I don't think there's any point in indulging in whayaboutery normally but it's the height of hypocrisy to accuse a democrat administration of lies and a cover up and not acknowledging the gross incompetence that led to the Iraq war or the fudge that was the 9/11 commission.

Amerika

So, whataboutery isn’t fair play only when used by people on the right?

If all the information requested by congress was supplied, there probably would be no need to dig further into the truth. Where do you think the two days of critical emails after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans, including our Ambassador, from the White House got to... Cybergeddon?

And there’s a world of difference between lying to the American people and an administration possibly coming to a wrong conclusion from intelligence gathered.

Abuse of power is always a serious matter. Now I’m not accusing the White House of doing anything seriously wrong here, and would simply just like to know all the facts (I don’t want a vicious IRS audit you know :pac:).

Amerika

"Curiouser and curiouser!"
　
If what I have been reading recently turns out to be correct, this Benghazi tragedy is about to get real interesting and even more tragic than it already is.

It is hearsay at the current time because additional whistleblowers are securing legal counsel as the positions they work in are not fully protected by the Whistleblower law. (Nobody in their right mind wants to be the recipient of the wrath of Obama or Clinton without some form of protection.)

That Ambassador Stevens’ mission in Benghazi was to buy back Stinger missiles from insurgent groups (that turned out to be al-Qaeda), issued to them by the State Department.

That AFRICOM had Special Ops assets ready that could have come to the aid of the consulate immediately… not in six hours as the American people have been told.

Hmmmm..... "There’s no There There"? Well, apparently there just might be some huge god awful There There.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

Amerika

So today’s story from officials in responsible positions at the time -- regarding Benghazi is "We made mistakes, but without malice" (version 12.675?)

Hmmm, but one has to wonder... Since when is lying to the American people and waiting months to release information, so as not to show the people utter incompetence in dealing with a terrorist matter in order to swing a presidential election, not considered malice?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/

FISMA

FatherTed wrote: »

Clinton & Co never acted on the WMD reports because they knew the evidence was too flimsy. Bush & Co created a war that caused thousands of lives(not to mention the cost) based on something that didn't exist.

Clinton also had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden...

Please stop with the rhetoric. A democractic congress acted on the same intel as Bush. The democrats voted us in to war.

Also, the intel Bush and the democratic congress, albeit faulty, was the best there was.

That's not the situation in Bengazzi.

It is now known that even while the CIA informed the White House that Bengazzi was a terrorist attack, they continued with the YouTube story for days.

That is, they lied.

That is the difference.

The questions now are: how far back does the lie go and how far up?

Do you understand?

Does anyone really think the Democrats are going to lead the charge against Obama?

Paleface

IMO Jon Stewart nailed the whole Banghazi situation in this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uvpkBcvnA

Amerika

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad that so many’s only source of news is Jon Stewart. But I digress. Now... why is this a lesson in stupidity one may ask… “So why is this attack so different for Republicans?” ponders funnyman Stewart. Well, perhaps because the prior administration never denied that the attacks on diplomatic targets under their watch were acts of terrorism. And I don’t recall them blaming the attacks on some obscure video (and if I’m wrong on that bit of information, please let me know). And it just so happens that the original talking points were completely correct. Why did the administration change it so dramatically? Deep down I think we all know why.

Overheal

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad that so many’s only source of news is Jon Stewart.

Well, news articles as well. But no I don't get my news from other television sources.

Amerika

Hmmm... I wonder what Stewart’s take will be on the fact that Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman who played a major role in deleting much of the Talking Points memo to a point where the concerns of her superiors that it was a terrorist attack were satisfied, just got nominated by president Obama to a plum new post as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs? Probably a non issue to him because, as we all know, "Benghazi happened a long time ago."

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... I wonder what Stewart’s take will be on the fact that Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman who played a major role in deleting much of the Talking Points memo to a point where the concerns of her superiors that it was a terrorist attack were satisfied, just got nominated by president Obama to a plum new post as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs? Probably a non issue to him because, as we all know, "Benghazi happened a long time ago."

and whats yours?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

and whats yours?

Pure partisan political distractions on the part of the administration to take away from the main focus of the scandal(s). Who in their right mind thinks her nomination will not develop into a senate confirmation fight because of appearances that favors are given to a political foot soldier? Ohhh the bad GOP… stopping everything from progressing simply because of their political witch hunt against the administration. And sadly I fear the majority of the people will blindly buy into it.

UNI4MER

This scandal along with the IRS scandal is typical with this left wing administration. It comes from the top, the main stream media gets its talking points, then there is cover up. Hitler's Gestapo would be proud of the Obama administration's techniques. The sad part is the lack of agressiveness on the side of the Repubs to bring this to a real fight. My country is falling into a socialist/Marxist path and unless another Reagan emerges we are done.

Mjollnir

UNI4MER wrote: »

This scandal along with the IRS scandal is typical with this left wing administration. It comes from the top, the main stream media gets its talking points, then there is cover up. Hitler's Gestapo would be proud of the Obama administration's techniques. The sad part is the lack of agressiveness on the side of the Repubs to bring this to a real fight. My country is falling into a socialist/Marxist path and unless another Reagan emerges we are done.

A. What scandals?
B. Even Issa admits there is no such evidence that indicates 'it comes form the top'.
C. The Gestapo was nothing even remotely like the O admin.
D. "Marxist/Socialist"? Really? No, seriously: really?
E. Ronald Reagan was a hardcore socialist and wealth redistributor. He signed the EITC into law. That's far, far more directly socialist than anything Obama has done.

Anything else?

Amerika

The MSM theme now is that the GOP is "overreaching" on the Benghazi, IRS and DOJ scandals. I was wondering when they would get their scandal reporting marching orders from the DNC.

Amerika

I’ve been reading that President Obama’s appointment of Susan Rice to be his National Security Adviser means he can invoke Executive Privilege to keep her from testifying before Congress over Benghazi.

BEND OVER AND SPREAD THEM AMERICA!

UNI4MER

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve been reading that President Obama’s appointment of Susan Rice to be his National Security Adviser means he can invoke Executive Privilege to keep her from testifying before Congress over Benghazi.

BEND OVER AND SPREAD THEM AMERICA!

You are absolutely correct. If this was a Republican president with this scandal as well as the IRS scandal the press would be all over it and impeachment would be in the air daily. Our press for the most part carries water for the liberal democrats and continues to cover up for this administration and its policies which are slowly destroying this country. What's worse is the Republican leadership won't stand up and fight like they should leaving 1/2 the country unrepresented.

Mjollnir

UNI4MER wrote: »

You are absolutely correct. If this was a Republican president with this scandal as well as the IRS scandal the press would be all over it and impeachment would be in the air daily. Our press for the most part carries water for the liberal democrats and continues to cover up for this administration and its policies which are slowly destroying this country. What's worse is the Republican leadership won't stand up and fight like they should leaving 1/2 the country unrepresented.

No, what's actually happening is that the Repub "leadership" is trying to make political hay out of 'scandals' that aren't actually scandals.

UNI4MER

Mjollnir wrote: »

No, what's actually happening is that the Repub "leadership" is trying to make political hay out of 'scandals' that aren't actually scandals.

Really. Blaming a video for the murders of 4 Americans? Sicking the IRS on your political advasaries? What your definition of a scandal?

Mjollnir

UNI4MER wrote: »

Really. Blaming a video for the murders of 4 Americans? Sicking the IRS on your political advasaries? What your definition of a scandal?

Yawn.

A. That's simply not a 'scandal', except, perhaps to those pathologically obsessed with making a tragedy in to a political travesty.
B. The IRS was not 'sicked' on anyone.

You're welcome.

UNI4MER

Mjollnir wrote: »

Yawn.

A. That's simply not a 'scandal', except, perhaps to those pathologically obsessed with making a tragedy in to a political travesty.
B. The IRS was not 'sicked' on anyone.

You're welcome.

Then you must support the actions of this government on both issues. Sad but true.

FISMA

Mjollnir wrote: »

A. That's simply not a 'scandal', except, perhaps to those pathologically obsessed with making a tragedy in to a political travesty.

I'm not "pathologically obsessed," however, I do believe that politicians should not lie and that they should be held liable for the decisions they make, especially if it is determined they were negligent.

Mjollnir wrote: »

B. The IRS was not 'sicked' on anyone.

Then why only conservative groups?

Mjollnir

FISMA wrote: »

I'm not "pathologically obsessed," however, I do believe that politicians should not lie and that they should be held liable for the decisions they make, especially if it is determined they were negligent.

You believe politicians 'should not lie'? Oh, OK.

Go ahead and point out the negligence.

Then why only conservative groups?

That simply isn't the case.

Mjollnir

UNI4MER wrote: »

Then you must support the actions of this government on both issues. Sad but true.

Really? Must I?

What actions are you referring to?

Please be very specific.

FISMA

Mjollnir wrote: »

You believe politicians 'should not lie'?

Generally speaking, politicians do not lie. That is not, however, equivalent to saying they speak the truth.

It's a lot like your posts, you do not lie, you just omit the truth.

Mjollnir wrote: »

Go ahead and point out the negligence.

negligent

b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances


Mjollnir, would you agree that when evidence of increasing violence is available and the people in charge do not act on that information, those in charge are negligent? Or, are you just a pundit for the Obama administration?

• April 6th – IED thrown over the fence of U.S. consulate.
• May 1st – Deputy commander of the U.S. embassy Tripoli is carjacked beaten, detained by armed youth. Britain and other NATO embassy’s are attacked.

May 3rd – State Dept. declines a request from personal from the U.S. embassy worried about their safety for a DC-3. (negligence)

• May 22nd – 2 rocket propelled grenades fired at the Benghazi office of the international committee of the Red Cross. (less than 1 mile away from the U.S. consulate.)
• June 6th – Large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. embassy, big enough for 40 men to go through.
• June 10th – RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British ambassador in daylight. (British close the consulate.)
• Late June – International committee of the Red Cross is attacked again and they close their consulate.
• Aug. 6th – Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with US diplomatic plates with US personal.
• Sept. 11th – U.S. embassy in Benghazi is attacked. (Negligence and liable)

Source

Mjollnir wrote: »

That simply isn't the case.

Quid pro quo, what percentage of the cases were not conservative groups? Would you please name a few?

Mjollnir

FISMA wrote: »

Generally speaking, politicians do not lie. That is not, however, equivalent to saying they speak the truth.

It's a lot like your posts, you do not lie, you just omit the truth.

Yawn. Where have I 'omitted the truth'?

And, yes, generally speaking, they lie. Sorry to have to be the one to expose you to reality.

negligent

b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances


Mjollnir, would you agree that when evidence of increasing violence is available and the people in charge do not act on that information, those in charge are negligent? Or, are you just a pundit for the Obama administration?

Spare me the gushing, hyperbolic questions. I deal with reality; if it makes you uncomfy, it's simply not my problem.

• April 6th – IED thrown over the fence of U.S. consulate.
• May 1st – Deputy commander of the U.S. embassy Tripoli is carjacked beaten, detained by armed youth. Britain and other NATO embassy’s are attacked.

May 3rd – State Dept. declines a request from personal from the U.S. embassy worried about their safety for a DC-3. (negligence)

• May 22nd – 2 rocket propelled grenades fired at the Benghazi office of the international committee of the Red Cross. (less than 1 mile away from the U.S. consulate.)
• June 6th – Large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. embassy, big enough for 40 men to go through.
• June 10th – RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British ambassador in daylight. (British close the consulate.)
• Late June – International committee of the Red Cross is attacked again and they close their consulate.
• Aug. 6th – Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with US diplomatic plates with US personal.
• Sept. 11th – U.S. embassy in Benghazi is attacked. (Negligence and liable)

Source

And? You still have not demonstrated negligence in any substantive manner. You can pretend that issues with the Red Cross are relevant, but I'm not buying what you're selling/

Quid pro quo, what percentage of the cases were not conservative groups? Would you please name a few?

Ah, so you're utterly unfamiliar with the actual details of the matter. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? Here: educate yourself.

http://crooksandliars.com/dave-johnson/latest-lie-irs-targeted-conservatives

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10021