• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What we learned from the Benghazi Hearings

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
81,903
Reaction score
45,028
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mostly I'm pissed off by 1, 3, 4, and, to a lesser extent (it is, sadly, expected), 6.


1. There were multiple stand-down orders, not just one. Special operations forces were told, twice, by their chain of command not to board aircraft to Benghazi to rescue the Americans then under attack. The U.S. deputy diplomat, Greg Hicks, testified that the military commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, had his team ready to go twice. They were on the runway about to board a flight to Benghazi in the middle of the attack... The fact that Hicks’ team was able get to Benghazi before the end of the assault strongly suggests that the special operations team could have made a real difference....

2. Ambassador Stevens’ reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up. Hicks testified that Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi to fulfill one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s wishes. Despite the fact that security was worsening in Benghazi for months leading up to the 9-11 attack, Clinton wanted to make the post there permanent. Her State Department had denied repeated requests from the U.S. team in Libya to upgrade security there, but she wanted to use the permanent post as a symbol of goodwill...

3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway. Hicks also testified that he was shocked when Ambassador Susan Rice blamed a YouTube movie for inspiring the 9-11 attack. He testified that he had briefed Secretary Clinton directly via phone at 2 a.m. and told her that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He never mentioned a YouTube video, which he never once believed had anything to do with the attack. But Clinton shocked him by blaming the movie on Sept 12. She would blame it, again, while standing before the coffins of the slain Americans, on Sept. 14. During the attack, Clinton told Hicks that no help would be on the way to relieve the Americans under sustained assault.

4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence. Hicks testified to a pattern of behavior that leads to the reasonable conclusion that many officials within the State Department wanted him to remain silent after the Benghazi attack. He said that on the night of the attack he was personally commended both by Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama. But he later questioned why Ambassador Rice blamed the YouTube movie, and from that point on his superior, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones, questioned his “management style” and told him directly that no one in State should want him on their team in the field again....

5. “The YouTube movie was a non-event in Libya.” Hicks directly testified that the YouTube movie, for which a man remains in jail, was not in any way relevant to the attack in Benghazi. Why Obama, Clinton, Rice et al blamed that movie for the attack remains an unanswered question. Hicks said that no American on the ground in Libya that night believed the movie was to blame. He also testified that there was no protest prior to the attack....

6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) set the tone for the Democrats’ angle on the hearings in his opening remarks. He used his opening to attack the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, and to pre-question the witnesses. Most of the Democrats who followed him failed to ask many questions of the witnesses. Instead, they delivered speeches or blamed budget cuts, an argument that has already been debunked by the State Department itself....

7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack. The Republicans, as I said, should have broken today’s hearing out across several days. When they did question the witnesses, they kept their speeches short and focused on getting answers. Their Democratic counterparts consistently gave speeches and raised red herrings. They were able to waste time and stall long enough for the Arias trial to push the hearing off the TV, and for energy to flag and boredom to set in....



That just doesn't fit in my brain. How the hell you stand down a QRF when you still have people in duress... I just can't wrap my mind around that.
So. Who made that call - SecState, or POTUS?
 
Mostly I'm pissed off by 1, 3, 4, and, to a lesser extent (it is, sadly, expected), 6.


[/FONT][/COLOR]


That just doesn't fit in my brain. How the hell you stand down a QRF when you still have people in duress... I just can't wrap my mind around that.
So. Who made that call - SecState, or POTUS?

We may never know for sure, due to this:

House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack.

but the whole Benghazi mess smells worse than a pile of manure after a spring rain on a warm day.
 
It's really pretty simple.

The State Department was working with Ansar al-Sharia either as a gesture of good will in helping stabilize Libya or in funneling arms to Syria (perhaps both). A faction of this organization decided to do what jihadi's do and kill infidels. At that point the state department decided that it was more important to "not offend the sensibilities" of this terrorist group than it was to deal with people that were killing Americans.
 
What we learned from the Benghazi hearings? That the right-wing propoganda machine continues to project feigned outrage in yet another desperate failed attempt to gain political points. It didn't work the first 133 times.....so why did they think that it would work the 134th time? America saw right through their ploys.
 
That is a good summation of the issues raised yesterday. I'm not terribly surprised, however, by the revelations. It seems consistent with the administration's full bore approach to the use of drones outside zones of war - the attitude seems to be that the loss of some innocent lives is a fair price to pay for the advancement of the administration's political goals.
 
This is what I can't understand the Dem / obama supporters objection too: who are the people who made the decisions. Who, name please, decided Ms. rice would tell us a known lie? Once we have that name we can ask them why! I don't understand why that is political or why a political party would find that objectionable.
 
What we learned from the Benghazi hearings? That the right-wing propoganda machine continues to project feigned outrage in yet another desperate failed attempt to gain political points. It didn't work the first 133 times.....so why did they think that it would work the 134th time? America saw right through their ploys.

Perhaps the 50% of Americans who reelected the dolt in the White House, but not all Americans. Even before the truth had a chance to come out, Americans polled were divided on the administration's handling of Benghazi and the aftermath.

CNN Poll: Americans rate W.H. response to Benghazi attack and Petraeus resignation – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

While at the time that poll was taken, only 40% believed there was a coverup, one has to wonder what they are beginning to think now. The media is still trying to suppress the story - CNN covered the Arias murder verdict and the Cleveland kidnappings extensively before any mention - but I remember how Watergate trickled out 40 years ago. We'll have to see if this story continues to progress before you surf off into the night on your victory board.
 
What we learned from the Benghazi hearings? That the right-wing propoganda machine continues to project feigned outrage in yet another desperate failed attempt to gain political points. It didn't work the first 133 times.....so why did they think that it would work the 134th time? America saw right through their ploys.
Feigned outrage? Maybe from a few inside the beltway types but as a citizen I can tell you that I am genuinely pissed off. If nothing else these hearings revealed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the administration outright LIED to us for several weeks following the attack. I'll leave it to others to speculate as to WHY they lied but the fact that they DID LIE should be obvious to even the most hardened partisans, like yourself, at this point.

No, it's not the first time we've been lied to and I'm sure it won't be the last. No one will go to jail, no one will get fired, and probably no one will even admit to it but the fact that we were lied to is now etched in stone. You can pretend that it's no big deal, you can divert and point to lies told by Republicans, but you can no longer say that "it's all just a political witch hunt" because a lie WAS revealed.

And I hate being lied to.

<rant off>
 
Feigned outrage? Maybe from a few inside the beltway types but as a citizen I can tell you that I am genuinely pissed off. If nothing else these hearings revealed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the administration outright LIED to us for several weeks following the attack. I'll leave it to others to speculate as to WHY they lied but the fact that they DID LIE should be obvious to even the most hardened partisans, like yourself, at this point.

No, it's not the first time we've been lied to and I'm sure it won't be the last. No one will go to jail, no one will get fired, and probably no one will even admit to it but the fact that we were lied to is now etched in stone. You can pretend that it's no big deal, you can divert and point to lies told by Republicans, but you can no longer say that "it's all just a political witch hunt" because a lie WAS revealed.

And I hate being lied to.

<rant off>

Good morning, JF! :2wave:

Very well stated! :thumbs:
 
That is a good summation of the issues raised yesterday. I'm not terribly surprised, however, by the revelations. It seems consistent with the administration's full bore approach to the use of drones outside zones of war - the attitude seems to be that the loss of some innocent lives is a fair price to pay for the advancement of the administration's political goals.


Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Too bad we can't interview some of the survivors who lost innocent family members, some of them children! Yep, a new chapter in the book, "How to Win Friends, and Influence People" is being written! The term "collateral damage" makes everything okay, I guess. :shock: We'll see if opinions change if it were to happen to us, but I can't forget the shock and outrage after our Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11! We weren't so forgiving, as I recall. :argue:
 
Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Too bad we can't interview some of the survivors who lost innocent family members, some of them children! Yep, a new chapter in the book, "How to Win Friends, and Influence People" is being written! The term "collateral damage" makes everything okay, I guess. :shock: We'll see if opinions change if it were to happen to us, but I can't forget the shock and outrage after our Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11! We weren't so forgiving, as I recall. :argue:

Good morning Lady P - a little rainy here this morning so spending a little time inside - hopefully, not too long.
 
This is worse than Watergate plus Iran-Contra times ten.
 
Good morning Lady P - a little rainy here this morning so spending a little time inside - hopefully, not too long.

Very sunny here, and warm. We had a few sprinkles last night, but our forecast calls for rain tomorrow, so I hope to get a few more things planted in the garden today. Have a good day,CJ! ... Hopefully see you later today.... :thumbs:
 
Mostly I'm pissed off by 1, 3, 4, and, to a lesser extent (it is, sadly, expected), 6.

That just doesn't fit in my brain. How the hell you stand down a QRF when you still have people in duress... I just can't wrap my mind around that.[/FONT][/COLOR] So. Who made that call - SecState, or POTUS?


I can add this to go with it CW.....what I don't get it Obama could have called it for what it was and then had the Whole Country come together over it. Why didn't he and why chose to go this way?

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings.

63d1cc90-cea1-486d-8669-4fa1cf3bf26e.jpg


Much of the media and liberal establishment simply ignored yesterday's Benghazi hearings. They were content to see, hear, and speak no evil -- which is typically the fastest way to kill a story in Washington. Others framed the proceedings as just another quixotic, partisan effort to hype a long-resolved story. Selling that template requires adherence to two fallacious assertions: First, that no major questions remain regarding the 9/11 terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- and second, that no new information emerged from the whistle-blowers' hours-long testimony. The former claim is outright insulting. The latter betrays either aggressive ignorance or wishful thinking. House Oversight Committee Republicans' focused questioning extracted quite a few nuggets of relevant information. For their part, many committee Democrats were focused on unseemly efforts to attack, distract and smear -- all employed as they cynically groused about Republicans "politicizing" the investigation. Cutting through the nonsense and dissembling, here's what we now know:

1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens' second in command, Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks' discussions with members of Congress (higher quality video is available here):

(2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the administration's inaccurate talking points with State Department higher-ups, the administration turned hostile. After being lavishly praised by the president and the Secretary of State for his performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones instantly reversed course and launched into a "blistering critique" of Hicks' leadership. He was subsequently "effectively demoted." Hicks called Rice's talking points "stunning" and "embarrassing."

(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.

(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant -- the facts in item #4 notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last? How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.....snip~

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson
 
What we know:

1.) Hillary Clinton is a coward.

2.) President Obama was derelict as Commander and Chief on the night of 9-11-12.

3.) There was a cover up for Obama's own political gain by blaming Benghazi on a You Tube video.

4.) The Democrat Party believes that the four Americans who were murdered in Benghazi were expendable for Obama's own political gain.

What we still don't know:

1.) Who ordered the Special Forces to "stand down" ?

2.) Where was President Obama and what was he doing after 5:00 PM EDST until he went to bed ?

3.) When did electric cars and electric refueling stations become more important than American lives ?
 
Another Issa show trial fizzles.

How's that Fast and Furious thingie working out for the tea partiers?
 
Another Issa show trial fizzles.

How's that Fast and Furious thingie working out for the tea partiers?

So hows it feel to have more Democrats calling for more hearings.....Now what will you and the Obamabots do? Will there be cries of they are picking on me? :lol:
 
This is what I can't understand the Dem / obama supporters objection too: who are the people who made the decisions. Who, name please, decided Ms. rice would tell us a known lie? Once we have that name we can ask them why! I don't understand why that is political or why a political party would find that objectionable.

Since it was the CIA that requested that "cover story", you could blame General Petraeus who was head of the CIA at the time. I guess his name was "Betray us" after all. :lol:
 
Since it was the CIA that requested that "cover story", you could blame General Petraeus who was head of
the CIA at the time. I guess his name was "Betray us" after all. :lol:

Riiiight....

Those E-mails that show the change in talking points were NOT from the CIA.

Not too mention before Susan Rice went on her 5 show lie-athon the State Dept had already sent out E-Mails telling the LIBYANS that it was a terror attack.

No, your lying POS President and lying POS Sec of State betrayed those people and their families.

you making stuff up doesn't change that.
 
Feigned outrage? Maybe from a few inside the beltway types but as a citizen I can tell you that I am genuinely pissed off. If nothing else these hearings revealed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the administration outright LIED to us for several weeks following the attack. I'll leave it to others to speculate as to WHY they lied but the fact that they DID LIE should be obvious to even the most hardened partisans, like yourself, at this point.

No, it's not the first time we've been lied to and I'm sure it won't be the last. No one will go to jail, no one will get fired, and probably no one will even admit to it but the fact that we were lied to is now etched in stone. You can pretend that it's no big deal, you can divert and point to lies told by Republicans, but you can no longer say that "it's all just a political witch hunt" because a lie WAS revealed.

And I hate being lied to.

<rant off>

Why is it that those who are so "outraged" by the supposed lies here...are the same people who continue to idolize a President who lied and manipulated American's fears to justify starting a war against a country that didn't attack us. Why are the lives of the thousands of Americans who died in the Iraq war worth less in your eyes....than the four Americans who died in Benghazi? So...yes.....we do see right through your feigned outrage.
 
Mostly I'm pissed off by 1, 3, 4, and, to a lesser extent (it is, sadly, expected), 6.


[/FONT][/COLOR]


That just doesn't fit in my brain. How the hell you stand down a QRF when you still have people in duress... I just can't wrap my mind around that.
So. Who made that call - SecState, or POTUS?

why didn't the issa committee hearing get the answer to that question?
because the answer would not have advanced his anti-Obama, obstructionist agenda
 
Why is it that those who are so "outraged" by the supposed lies here...are the same people who continue to idolize a President who lied and manipulated American's fears to justify starting a war against a country that didn't attack us. Why are the lives of the thousands of Americans who died in the Iraq war worth less in your eyes....than the four Americans who died in Benghazi? So...yes.....we do see right through your feigned outrage.

Did you think using the argument of a different Administration that made mistakes.....justifies the mistakes made by this Administration? Did you figure out about that part of keeping on of doing the wrong thing? So in your mind.....it is alright for Team Obama to do the wrong things just because someone else did the wrong thing? Is this your way of not Holding Obama accountable for anything?

Looks like you haven't been able to keep up with those fact checkers. Do you think that is the reason that you are unable to comprehend what the actual truth is? No wonder you are having a hard time discerning reality.
 
Another Issa show trial fizzles.

How's that Fast and Furious thingie working out for the tea partiers?

Hows it feel to have the Democrats call for more Hearings themselves. Now what will you and the Obamabots do? Will the Obamabots cry and whine that they are getting picked on now?
 
Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton......
Both parties are wrong about the scandal: It’s not Watergate and it’s not nothing.



Both parties are wrong about Benghazi. Existing evidence does not point to a far-reaching cover-up on the scale of Watergate, as Republicans want you to believe. But it is not, as the White House claims, nothing.

The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government.

If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.

Credibility is Obama’s strong suit, a key reason why his personal approval ratings continue to buoy soft job approval scores. He can’t afford to lose that trust.

Credibility is Clinton’s vulnerability, dating to the unjustified financial accusations that triggered the Whitewater investigation. Doubts persisted about her veracity and authenticity throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.

Where the administration is most vulnerable is on questions of trust – an issue that, once exposed, can impact how votes consider the president’s words and deeds on all matters. This should be the White House's greatest concern after Wednesday’s hearing on the events leading to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and two security officers. Four points:

The original sin: It took the president and his team too long to acknowledge the fact that armed Islamic militants had penetrated the diplomatic compound. Coming as it did during a tense re-election race the administration’s determined reluctance to use the word “terrorists” seems informed, if not driven, by political considerations. When United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice suggested on Sunday talk shows days after the attack that it had begun with protests against an anti-Muslim video, high-ranking diplomat Gregory Hicks said, “I was stunned. My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.”

The call. Hicks’ emotional testimony Wednesday accused the administration of political machinations and bullying. Hicks told lawmakers that he was ordered not to talk to members of Congress about the attack. When he did so anyhow, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from the meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff. Mills is well-respected and known for her fierce loyalty to Clinton. If Hicks is to be believed, issuing a no-communications order is an inherently political act and, by definition, a blow for transparency.

The demotion. Hicks told lawmakers he was given a scathing review of his management style after the attacks and was later “effectively demoted.” The State Department strongly denies his account, saying it had not and would not retaliate against Hicks. We don’t know who is telling the truth, but Hicks’ testimony forced Obama’s aides to make a devil’s choice between letting the allegations stand or calling a respected and long-serving diplomat, effectively, a liar. They chose the latter.

The review. The administration’s review of Benghazi criticized the “grossly inadequate” security at the diplomatic compound and led to the dismissal of four State Department officials. Witnesses said the investigation, led by veteran retired diplomat Thomas Pickering, was inadequate. “They stopped short of interviewing people who I personally know were involved in key decisions,” testified Eric Nordstrom, an official in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The testimony of these credible whistleblowers may raise doubts in voters' minds about how honestly the Obama administration faced its failings. Despite that, the Pickering report is a scathing indictment of State Department security efforts on Clinton's watch. If she runs for president, embassy security will be a credible and durable issue.....snip~

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton - NationalJournal.com


Don't ya just luv the way how the Left think it is nothing.....this explains how such affects Obama and Clinton. Its all about credibility. Which Team Obama isn't looking to credible. It is quite amusing that the left could not see this writing on the wall. Credibility.....that which Team Obama is lacking. :lol:
 
Why is it that those who are so "outraged" by the supposed lies here...are the same people who continue to idolize a President who lied and manipulated American's fears to justify starting a war against a country that didn't attack us. Why are the lives of the thousands of Americans who died in the Iraq war worth less in your eyes....than the four Americans who died in Benghazi? So...yes.....we do see right through your feigned outrage.
I said you could:
1. Pretend it was no big deal.
2. Divert and point to lies told by Republicans

I see you've chosen option two. That's fantastic. Really... it is. "Our President can lie, cheat, steal, or whatever. Just as long as he's a Democrat."
 
Back
Top Bottom