# CSPAN: Live testimony by Clinton on Benghazi



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

Everybody should be watching right now, or at least should watch the testimony later.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sec-of...S-Consulate-Attack-in-Benghazi/10737437475-1/


Or you can just read the footnotes on Fox News taken out of context and misrepresented and then post it on Facebook. That's cool too.


----------



## Yoshi (Jan 23, 2013)

Thank you for the heads up.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 23, 2013)

Or you can get the play by play from Ranger Up:


> Ranger Up Military and MMA Apparel
> If you aren't watching the Hillary Clinton Benghazi Hearing right now, you're missing John McCain attacking her like a rabid Spider Monkey on Coke. Hey wait a second...I have designers and photoshop. Be right back.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jan 23, 2013)

Rand Paul isn't playing around in his questioning.


----------



## Yoshi (Jan 23, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Rand Paul isn't playing around in his questioning.


 
It seems like Sec. Clintons answer to his questions was we will answer all your questions...??


----------



## TheSiatonist (Jan 23, 2013)

Will her testimony be available to the public?


----------



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

TheSiatonist said:


> Will her testimony be available to the public?


Every unclassified testimony since the late 70s that was videotapes is on CSPAN for public viewing. You'll be able to watch it instantly.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Jan 23, 2013)

Sorry --  I was referring to the document they were reading and referring to during the questioning. I guess this is the one I am seeing right now that she is reading in the replay.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> Or you can just read the footnotes on Fox News taken out of context and misrepresented and then post it on Facebook. That's cool too.



Too true.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 23, 2013)

What difference does it make????  This is precisely why I cant watch this shit show.


----------



## Gypsy (Jan 23, 2013)

Oh I can't wait to get home and watch this witch squirm in trying to justify her / their lack of action.  Screw them.


----------



## Jay (Jan 23, 2013)

Lol


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 23, 2013)

I bet the terror organizations world wide watching this shit show are having a great time.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 23, 2013)

She should resign. I've noticed that people in high positions in power have rarely had their feet held to the fire. It's most of the time a "failure of x,y,z" or "a systems failure", or "policy blah blah blah".


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 23, 2013)

Here is a transcript of sorts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/23/clinton-testifies-congress-benghazi-live


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2013)

She has one foot out the door. She could show up like Nathan Jessup, tell them she ordered the Code Red, and walk right out. What could anyone do? Force her to resign? Jail time? Who is going to throw her in the slammer? Pffttt...she could flat out admit that she saw the request for more security and turned it down because she could care less about some career public servant and a bunch of "mercenaries" off in some third world crap hole most people couldn't find on a map. You know what would happen to her?

Not a damn thing.

It doesn't matter how wrong or culpable she is, the sad reality is not one damn thing would happen to her. The only reason to show up and play the spin game is her image or legacy or even a future run at a higher office if she wanted to, but justice?

Not bloody likely, old chap, and you might as well become comfortable with the concept.

It sucks, but that's reality.


----------



## Frank S. (Jan 23, 2013)

Did you notice? The buck no longer stops anywhere. It's a fucking volleyball game.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 23, 2013)

Wait for 2016.


----------



## TH15 (Jan 23, 2013)

I didn't watch all of the Senate hearing, but I must admit she came off to be pompous bitch- in particular during the Rand Paul grilling. I'm sorry, but four American lives were lost because of your agency's lack of competence. You need to get your fucking hand out from underneath your chin, stop condescendingly smirking, and take this shit seriously- or at least pretend to so it doesn't appear that we're inconveniencing your day in holding you responsible. Or maybe inconveniencing your plans for whatever political post you plan to use your husband's name for next.. Maybe that's more appropriate.

I also believe she deserves an Oscar for "choking up" when discussing her part in attending the ceremony where the bodies were brought home. She must've taken a page from BO's Newtown speech... "_Don't forget to wipe a tear from your eye, Hilldawg_."


----------



## dknob (Jan 23, 2013)

Rand Paul kind of deserved it - he was asking an irrelevant question. I can't stand people who believe 100% accurate intelligence exists within hours of an event overseas.

Senator McCain confronted her and she was very respectful in her response..


----------



## Casimir (Jan 23, 2013)

I could not believe Durbin turning it into a partisan attack throwing out Iraq WMD's and blaming the funding hold solely on Republicans by blaming the House over and over again.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Or you can just read the footnotes on Fox News taken out of context and misrepresented and then post it on Facebook. That's cool too.


 

Examples?


----------



## TH15 (Jan 24, 2013)

I guess I disagree that Rand Paul "deserved it." I'm assuming you're talking about the question regarding weapons leaving Libya to Turkey. I think that's a legitimate question and I think he could've been a little more specific regarding the matter, but to say he deserved to have the Secretary of State be an arrogant cunt to him is a bit of a stretch. How did she expect to be treated after all the shenanigans this administration has pulled with this matter? IMO she's lucky she didn't have her ass handed to her as they could've made this extremely embarrassing and difficult for her if they really wanted to.

I think it's laughable she can say with a straight face that she believes in transparency and openness and accountability and blah blah blah when the attack occurred more than FOUR months ago and she is just now testifying before Congress. Her ass should've been in that seat a long, long time ago.


----------



## Gypsy (Jan 24, 2013)

Casimir said:


> I could not believe Durbin turning it into a partisan attack throwing out Iraq WMD's and blaming the funding hold solely on Republicans by blaming the House over and over again.


 
DICK is a fucking idiot.


----------



## Casimir (Jan 24, 2013)

The other part that made me want to lose my lunch was when the Rep from American Samoa was reading a scripted response about how WONDERFUL Billary is and dropped a bunch of not-so-subtle hints about how he hopes she runs for president in '16, then didn't ask her a SINGLE question pertaining to anything about why they were actually there. makes me so fuckin mad!!! That and her smug face and 'What are you gonna do about it?' expression. GAAAAH!

Losing more and more faith in the big government. For every step forward it's like a marathon backwards.


----------



## CDG (Jan 24, 2013)

It was difficult to keep watching.  I was so angry to see that when we're talking about a situation where American lives were lost, that thundercunt is sitting there with that goddamn arrogant smirk on her face.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 24, 2013)

Agree.  And I watched a few different clips today and she's banging on the desk, raising her voice about the 4 American lives that were lost.  Maybe if you had demonstrated some of that emotion (and/or acted on it) when the shit was hitting the fan you wouldn't be testifying in front of Congress you psycho hose beast.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 24, 2013)

She had months to prepare for this, on a side note she has great boobs


----------



## dknob (Jan 25, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Examples?


 






Just saw this posted by a kid on my facebook.



​*Chuck Calder* i'm glad someone finaly said it.
15 minutes ago · Like


​​*Chuck Calder* Had to share. Thanks
13 minutes ago · Like · 1


​​*Iassen *dude seriously? did you even watch the testimony? probably not, nobody in AMerica did. Just the footnotes. "WHat does it matter?" came in response to when one of the senators was asking if the attack started from an armed protest or an armed assault. it was a dumb fucking question period.
5 minutes ago · Like


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 25, 2013)

FWIW I was watching live when the "what does it matter" was screeched out by Secretary Clinton.  The meme pretty much describes my gut reaction to her statement.  I cant even imagine what the families of the dead thought of it.


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 25, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> FWIW I was watching live when the "what does it matter" was screeched out by Secretary Clinton. The meme pretty much describes my gut reaction to her statement. I cant even imagine what the families of the dead thought of it.


 
Unfortunately (and much to my dismay), get used to it....there will more of her bullshit to contend with in 2016.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 2, 2013)

But wait...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/01/Wolf-to-Kerry-Turn-Over-Benghazi-Survivors

I wonder if the White House will email the Congressmen a "you will regret this" veiled threat?  




> Congressman Frank Wolf (R - VA), Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Jim Gerlach (R - PA), a House Ways and Means Committee member, sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday and indicated that he was contacted by a "reliable source who provided information that there are wounded American personnel, including State Department employees, currently in rehabilitation and recovery at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center."
> 
> Wolf's letter continues saying that the source told him that as many as seven Americans have been or were given medical treatment at the facility, a number of which were State employees. According to both Wolf and Gerlach, another source corroborated the claim and "indicated that as many as 30 Americans (including State Department and CIA personnel and government contractors) may have been injured in the attack."
> 
> ...


----------



## Marine0311 (May 8, 2013)

More testimony today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/u...a-of-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


WASHINGTON — A veteran diplomat gave a riveting minute-by-minute account on Wednesday of the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, last Sept. 11 and described its contentious aftermath at a charged Congressional hearing that reflected the weighty political stakes perceived by both parties.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 8, 2013)

Jon Stewart really disappointed me tonight...I try to give him credit for at least pretending to be balanced; not tonight, I switched it off.


----------



## Confederate Son (May 9, 2013)

Watching the replay. This is like watching Cinemax porn..  you know what you want to see happen... but you're not gonna get to. 

I give the 3 testifying all the credit in the world for not standing up and throwing their shoes at some of the Committee Members..


----------



## Dame (May 9, 2013)

The way some people feel about watching the 747 video is how I feel about these hearings. I can't watch. I know the outcome and there is nothing I can do about it. And it hurts; it physically hurts. Watching our government lie and cover up the death of civilian employees as well as former military members makes me literally sick to my stomach. The pain and distrust this whole mess has inflicted on our citizens is just not going to go away. This is worse than Watergate. Four people died a violent and preventable death because our government needed this to be about a "spontaneous demonstration" that just happened to occur on 9/11. Even after other civilians knew this was planned. Sean Smith knew shit was going down. He posted it online hours before it began. There is no way this was not sent through channels once the embassy staff saw the "police" were casing the building and taking surveillance photos.


----------



## Confederate Son (May 9, 2013)

As disgusted as I am with some of the Committe Members, I'm just as proud of the 3 gentleman testifying.  It's a brutal situation but they give hope that there are good people who work for the Goverment that don't wear a uniform.


----------



## AWP (May 9, 2013)

Events like this touch upon a frightening reality: either partisan politics matters more than the truth (this cuts both ways) or we really are electing some of the dumbest people on the planet to govern our lives.

In a side note and to repeat an earlier post, if this goes anywhere I will be surprised. Fast and Furious anyone?


----------



## Totentanz (May 9, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Events like this touch upon a frightening reality: either partisan politics matters more than the truth (this cuts both ways) or we really are electing some of the dumbest people on the planet to govern our lives.


 
Or both...


----------



## DA SWO (May 9, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Events like this touch upon a frightening reality: either partisan politics matters more than the truth (this cuts both ways) or we really are electing some of the dumbest people on the planet to govern our lives.
> 
> In a side note and to repeat an earlier post, if this goes anywhere I will be surprised. Fast and Furious anyone?





Totentanz said:


> Or both...


Yep.

This may bite Hillary in the ass come 2016 though.

Republicans should be playing this as Hillary trying to make Obama look bad just before the election.


----------



## Dame (May 11, 2013)

Disgusting.


> The state department wanted to remove a reference to earlier CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi and excise the mention of Ansar al-Sharia, a group linked to al-Qaeda, ABC News reported.
> State department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in an email to intelligence and White House officials obtained by the ABC that the reference should be dropped because it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings", the network reports.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22486332


----------



## Scotth (May 14, 2013)

This whole situation has been blown out of proportion for partisan politics and nothing more. 

There have been plenty of other attacks on consulates and other State Department sites under both Democratic and Republican leadership that never had this kind of reaction.  Yes they fucked up just previous administration had when we lost Americans.

The truth is the administration fucked up.  Congress fucked up when they cut the security budget.  Nobody wants to take responsibility, this is about 2016 pure and simple.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 14, 2013)

Really?

So how the fuck did a fucking team with a plane, an hour away,  get told to NOT go and save american lives?

There's no budget problem according to the guys on the ground. It wasn't lack of money. Clinton signed off on putting a post in a retarded spot, Obama said NOPE to any rescue ops.

This administration let our people just fucking die in place without the means, men, or knowhow to at least make a Pyrrhic victory out of it one way or another.

This also supports why a tactical nuclear device should be the first thing installed in all embassies.  You want to overrun our embassy? It's going to cost you a 4 city block radius.


----------



## Gypsy (May 14, 2013)

Scotth said:


> This whole situation has been blown out of proportion for partisan politics and nothing more.


 
I thought it was about the 4 Americans left to die, and the families who deserve the truth.  Oh and the Americans around the globe at other consulates who hope they are not abandoned the same way.  My bad.

Had this happened under Bush's watch he'd have been crucified alive, you know that to be true.


----------



## Blizzard (May 14, 2013)

Scotth said:


> There have been plenty of other attacks on consulates and other State Department sites under both Democratic and Republican leadership that never had this kind of reaction. Yes they fucked up just previous administration had when we lost Americans.


Really?! Is that the argument you're going to stick with?

Aside from being a fallacy (hey, let's talk about anything else other than what actually took place), one very distinct difference between this attack and those that occured with previous administrations, is that no one tried to characterize the previous attacks as anything other than planned and coordinated attacks. None of those attacks ended with the death of the U.S. Ambassador, along with 3 others.

This administration, on the other hand, tried to tell us some yo-yo with a movie caused the problem.


----------



## Scotth (May 14, 2013)

Gypsy said:


> Had this happened under Bush's watch he'd have been crucified alive, you know that to be true.


 
13 American's died in attacks under the Bush Administration and there isn't a person on this site that could name one of the dead without Googling it.  That's the difference between then and now.  53 attacks under Bush and how many hearings did we have for all those attacks?  3 hearing and none of the hoopla that we have had for the 5 separate hearing we have held so far for this 1 incident.



Ranger Psych said:


> There's no budget problem according to the guys on the ground. It wasn't lack of money. Clinton signed off on putting a post in a retarded spot, Obama said NOPE to any rescue ops.
> 
> This administration let our people just fucking die in place without the means, men, or knowhow to at least make a Pyrrhic victory out of it one way or another.


 
Budgeting has no impact on the amount of preparation that can be done for all of our facilities? 

Neither Clinton or Obama are making security decision at any of the 100's of State Department sites.  They got professional State Department staff who make those decisions and they haven't provided a single piece of evidence of either Clinton or Obama being anywhere near the decision making on security issues that left them vulnerable.

The only thing that was offered was opinions and every opinion that said they let people die there has been another more credible person who said nothing could be done.

The only consistent thing you see is every conservative that has been on TV was that they preference every statement they made was "if".  If this happen OMG!  If this proves to be true it will be a bigger cover up then Watergate.  So on and so forth.

Congress gets a classified briefing about the attack and McCain, Graham and Ayotte can't attend the briefing because they were holding a press conference at the time to bitch about not getting enough information on the attack from the White House.  You can't make this shit up.

But don't worry this investigation is all about finding the truth.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 14, 2013)

Scotth said:


> 13 American's died in attacks under the Bush Administration and there isn't a person on this site that could name one of the dead without Googling it. That's the difference between then and now. 53 attacks under Bush and how many hearings did we have for all those attacks? 3 hearing and none of the hoopla that we have had for the 5 separate hearing we have held so far for this 1 incident.
> 
> 
> Budgeting has no impact on the amount of preparation that can be done for all of our facilities?
> ...


 
And you're all about listening to it, since you obviously listened to the 3 whistleblowers who specifically said that SECSTATE has to sign off on specific substandard arrangements for security of locations.

BUSH outright said he had a war going on, accepted that, and worked with it. Why don't you post up what happened since you're the all knowing herpderp who instead of citing sources just pulls crap out of your tailpipe?  You want to try to look like you're more knowledgable about it, then prove your position.

Everyone here knows you cowtow your party line, so it's not surprising in the least that you're warblegarbling about Bush when we're not talking about stuff that happened a decade ago, we're talking last year now bud. You can point back at bush all you want, but we're talking about CURRENT events, not the past.... although the white house goombas would like us to consider it the past and not a current event.

After all, It's not like it's the first time in 30 years that a fucking United States Ambassador was fucking KILLED in an ATTACK on a fucking diplomatic location. Not a big deal in the least, nothing to see here, move along


----------



## Scotth (May 14, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> And you're all about listening to it, since you obviously listened to the 3 whistleblowers who specifically said that SECSTATE has to sign off on specific substandard arrangements for security of locations.
> 
> BUSH outright said he had a war going on, accepted that, and worked with it. Why don't you post up what happened since you're the all knowing herpderp who instead of citing sources just pulls crap out of your tailpipe? You want to try to look like you're more knowledgable about it, then prove your position.
> 
> ...


 
Here is a link to a summary of attacks on US Consulates from January '58 to Feb 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

If Clinton signed off on specific substandard arrangements do you have a link to those documents?  Or do you just have people providing opinion?

Have we stopped fighting the GWOT?  Why is Bush exempt and Obama is not to these attacks?  I'm not blaming Bush and more than I'm blaming Obama.  I'm holding House and Senate Republican's, especially those that have been there under both circumstances, to task for very different reactions based on who is sitting in the White House.  Yes what happen in the past matters and like I said before what is happening today has nothing to do with what happened or the men lost that day.  It has everything to do with Presidential politics and 2016 and nothing more.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 14, 2013)

Ok, so you're citing a large portion of attacks minus Karachi and Benghazi, that resulted in the buffer personnel IE FLN's hired as security or detailed as host nation security elements to the diplomatic missions, as deaths.

No.

For anyone not understanding my level of no fucks given about the Foreign Local Nationals:

They are a meat shield. Literally. They choose to take the job knowing that they're protecting a US Embassy or other US State facility. 70% plus either know about, assist with, or just run the fuck away when shit goes down anyway. No fucks given about them.


----------



## Blizzard (May 14, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Why is Bush exempt and Obama is not to these attacks?


Again, a very significant difference is that at no time did Bush try to blame some movie for what took place and never were attacks characterized as anything put but planned, coordinated attacks. And, of course, in none of the previous attacks was the Amdassador and a number of his security detail killed. That alone makes it significantly different.

In addition, in the embassy attacks that occurred during the Bush administration, no Americans were killed, except for one waiting in line outside the walls when the Yemen attack started (show me your 13, my Googlefoo has the day off). None of the embassies were overrun.  Never was the embassy and their annex hit simultaneously. Benghazi was significantly different than the others you cite.


----------



## Scotth (May 14, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Ok, so you're citing a large portion of attacks minus Karachi and Benghazi, that resulted in the buffer personnel IE FLN's hired as security or detailed as host nation security elements to the diplomatic missions, as deaths.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


 
13 American's died in all those attacks as well as a lot of foreign contractors that I also don't give a rats ass about.  None of whom were the Ambassador at the time so I guess none of those American deaths rise to the same level and deserve the same scrutiny we see today.


----------



## Blizzard (May 15, 2013)

Scotth said:


> 13 American's died in all those attacks ...


Cite.


----------



## DA SWO (May 15, 2013)

Scotth said:


> 13 American's died in all those attacks as well as a lot of foreign contractors that I also don't give a rats ass about. None of whom were the Ambassador at the time so I guess none of those American deaths rise to the same level and deserve the same scrutiny we see today.


How many of those attacks were hit and run vs how many lasted 8 plus hours?
How many Ambassadors were killed?
Help was not that far away.
How many people living in the US were blamed, then thrown in jail? (yeah, let's not forget the guy who made a youtube video).


----------



## 8654Maine (May 15, 2013)

SOWT said:


> How many of those attacks were hit and run vs how many lasted 8 plus hours?
> How many Ambassadors were killed?
> Help was not that far away.
> *How many people living in the US were blamed, then thrown in jail? (yeah, let's not forget the guy who made a youtube video)*.


 
That was truly outrageous.  Our govt pointing fingers at others and trying to suppress someone's 1A right.
Nice scapegoating...that's the ticket.


----------



## pardus (May 15, 2013)

8654Maine said:


> That was truly outrageous. Our govt pointing fingers at others and trying to suppress someone's 1A right.
> Nice scapegoating...that's the ticket.


 
Anyone who thinks our govt supports and upholds the Constitution, and our rights is fooling themselves or is simply a fool.


----------



## dknob (May 15, 2013)

i think all these numerous media articles are citing bad sources. Until the CAG guys on the ground and the SF guys in Italy speak out then I'm not crucifying anybody.


----------



## Gypsy (May 15, 2013)

Scotth said:


> 13 American's died in attacks under the Bush Administration and there isn't a person on this site that could name one of the dead without Googling it. That's the difference between then and now. 53 attacks under Bush and how many hearings did we have for all those attacks? 3 hearing and none of the hoopla that we have had for the 5 separate hearing we have held so far for this 1 incident.


 
How many were *denied * the upfront security or help during the attacks that they requested? I don't remember this, nor anyone blaming a fucking video...but maybe I'm just old and crotchety today.


----------



## DA SWO (May 15, 2013)

Scotth said:


> This whole situation has been blown out of proportion for partisan politics and nothing more.
> 
> There have been plenty of other attacks on consulates and other State Department sites under both Democratic and Republican leadership that never had this kind of reaction. Yes they fucked up just previous administration had when we lost Americans.
> 
> The truth is the administration fucked up. Congress fucked up when they cut the security budget. Nobody wants to take responsibility, this is about 2016 pure and simple.


FWIW- State did not spend all the money they had in the security budget, so how would cutting have impacted them?  Other than a larger pot of unspent funds?


----------



## Scotth (May 19, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Cite.


 
Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation fishing and my internet access was limited.

I can't cite the 13 deaths completely. I can only site 8 American dead but in my defense State doesn't clearly publish a list of lost personal or the lost of American contractors working for State.
3 Deaths: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100102,00.html
American citizens deaths and kidnapping are found on the links of this page:
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/
5 Deaths from Thomas Jefferson Award:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_Star_for_Foreign_Service

Interesting historical recap of attacks on US Facilities:





http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-Romney



SOWT said:


> FWIW- State did not spend all the money they had in the security budget, so how would cutting have impacted them? Other than a larger pot of unspent funds?


 
The problem with that point is the attack occurred 11 days after the fiscal year started so not having all the money spent is not really a valid point. $296 million was cut since 2010 on State Department security budget alone. That is a significant cut and impacts the overall security operation.


----------



## DA SWO (May 19, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation fishing and my internet access was limited.
> 
> I can't cite the 13 deaths completely. I can only site 8 American dead but in my defense State doesn't clearly publish a list of lost personal or the lost of American contractors working for State.
> 3 Deaths: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100102,00.html
> ...


 
*WRONG!*

FY starts on 1 October, September is the end of the FY.  The money was taken back when it became clear State was not going to spend it.

Face it, Hildabeast fucked up, and they can't admit it was a terrorist event because it would get turned into Obama's version of "Mission Accomplished!".


----------



## Scotth (May 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> *WRONG!*
> 
> FY starts on 1 October, September is the end of the FY. The money was taken back when it became clear State was not going to spend it.
> 
> Face it, Hildabeast fucked up, and they can't admit it was a terrorist event because it would get turned into Obama's version of "Mission Accomplished!".


 
Your right October to September, my bad.  Do you have a link to how much money was still left in the account because I haven't read about that yet?

Of course ultimately Hillary and Obama are responsible.  Obama did say that the attack was an "Act of Terror" the day after the attack in his speech from the Rose Garden.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...marks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya


----------



## TLDR20 (May 19, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Your right October to September, my bad.  Do you have a link to how much money was still left in the account because I haven't read about that yet?
> 
> Of course ultimately Hillary and Obama are responsible.  Obama did say that the attack was an "Act of Terror" the day after the attack in his speech from the Rose Garden.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...marks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya



Washington Post fact checker disagrees.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html


----------



## DA SWO (May 19, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Your right October to September, my bad. Do you have a link to how much money was still left in the account because I haven't read about that yet?
> 
> Of course ultimately Hillary and Obama are responsible. Obama did say that the attack was an "Act of Terror" the day after the attack in his speech from the Rose Garden.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...marks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya


Then why send Ms Rice out to claim it was caused by a video (whose producer was quickly thrown back into jail)?
Why send money to Pakistan denouncing said video?
Plus cback0220 link takes the WH to task on the word terror.

Here is a (clipped) transcript via Breitbart:

From Breitbart: On Fox News Sunday this morning, White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer was asked by Chris Wallace where in the White House President Obama was during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans. “Question,” asked Wallace. “What did the President do the rest of that night to pursue Benghazi?” Pfeiffer answered, “Look, the President was kept up to date on this as it was happening the entire night, from the moment it started until the very end …. I recognize that there’s a series of conspiracy theories Republicans have been spinning about it since the time it happened.” He then added, “The question here is not what happened that night.”

Wallace pressed him further: “With due respect, you didn’t answer my question: what did the president do that night?” Pfeiffer said that Obama was in touch with his national security team, but as Wallace pointed out, he didn’t talk to the Secretary of State except for one time after the attack was over, didn’t talk to the Secretary of Defense, didn’t talk with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as it developed.

Finally, Wallace asked whether Obama was in the Situation Room. “I don’t remember what room the President was in on that night,” shot back Pfeiffer, “and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.” Wallace continued to press the point, and Pfeiffer continued to evade.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

_Now the WH is trying to spin POTUS location that night; after repeadtedly saying he was not in the situation room for the attack. So where was POTUS during the attack? Why the secrecy and evasions?_

_Platoon Leaders are held to a higher standard._


----------



## Blizzard (May 19, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation fishing and my internet access was limited.
> 
> I can't cite the 13 deaths completely. I can only site 8 American dead but in my defense State doesn't clearly publish a list of lost personal or the lost of American contractors working for State.
> 3 Deaths: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100102,00.html
> ...


Not even close!   None of those deaths occured at a U.S. Embassy or during an attack on a U.S. Embassy.  Attempting to compare those to Benghazi is silly.


----------



## Scotth (May 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Then why send Ms Rice out to claim it was caused by a video (whose producer was quickly thrown back into jail)?


Because that is what the intelligence community was saying at the time.
Link to CIA exchange on the subject: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interac...mails/white-house-benghazi-emails.pdf#page=29

If you listen to what Ms. Rice said she qualified her remarks that "at this time" this was the best assessment of what was happening and why.
From the transcript of her ABC appearance:


> For more on what happened and why, let's bring in the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice. Dr. Rice, thank you for joining us.
> RICE: Good to be with you, Jake.
> TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We're hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They're saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What's the latest information?
> RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
> ...


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week...ons-susan-rice/story?id=17240933#.UZkMf3oo7Gj

Then we have the current situation were Republican were caught releasing doctored quotes trying to prove a point that it was the WH driving those statements when it was the CIA. The WH was actually worried about preserving information for the following investigation. A very good summary of the ABC story based on doctored Republican quotes:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

A very good time line for the two separate attacks in Libya:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline



> Plus cback0220 link takes the WH to task on the word terror.


 
cback's link is a criticism of his statement at an election debate. It doesn't change the fact that he repeatedly called it an "Act or Terror" immediately following the incident which is what the right is trying to say he didn't. You can have an argument about the differences in the phrase "Act of Terrorism" vs. "Act of Terror" really means but we all know what the President says has consequence. If he overstates something he gets held to account just like after the arrest of Obama professors friend when he made comments not knowing the facts. People also try to hold him to some arbitrary standard of what is appropriate in there "opinion". The right wants to conveniently forget the events that proceeded Libya and everything that happened after Libya. The right wants to believe that none of those 30ish protest that followed after Cairo were motivated by that YouTube video and none of those events impacted the administrations reaction. Libya was just an isolated event.


----------



## Scotth (May 19, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Not even close! None of those deaths occured at a U.S. Embassy or during an attack on a U.S. Embassy. Attempting to compare those to Benghazi is silly.


 
Neither did the 4 people in Libya. 2 died at the State Department Annex in Benghazi and 2 more died at a separate CIA facility also in Benghazi.  The US Consulate is in Tripoli.


----------



## Blizzard (May 19, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Neither did the 4 people in Libya. 2 died at the State Department Annex in Benghazi and 2 more died at a separate CIA facility also in Benghazi. The US Consulate is in Tripoli.


Quit while you're behind. You can try to split hairs all you want (FWIW, the U.S. Embassy is in Tripoli, Benghazi was a consulate). Regardless, either way, they were U.S. diplomatic facilities and they were killed because it was being overrun. The scenarios you posted are in no way comparable.


----------



## DA SWO (May 19, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Because that is what the intelligence community was saying at the time.
> Link to CIA exchange on the subject: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interac...mails/white-house-benghazi-emails.pdf#page=29
> 
> If you listen to what Ms. Rice said she qualified her remarks that "at this time" this was the best assessment of what was happening and why.
> ...


 
_Wrong again, CIA documents were changed and the words Terror/Terrorism were removed by the State Deptarment (was was/is in full CYA mode)._

_How many attcks previous to this, lasted 8 hours?_


----------



## Scotth (May 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> _Wrong again, CIA documents were changed and the words Terror/Terrorism were removed by the State Deptarment (was was/is in full CYA mode)._


 
If you read through the released email in this link:  http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interac...mails/white-house-benghazi-emails.pdf#page=29

You will see from the very beginning the talking points were CIA owned.  If you go to anywhere in the middle you will find Victoria Nuland (State Dept Rep) was very unhappy with the wording of the talking points.  If you go to page 53 and look at an email from Jacob Sullivan to Victoria Nuland you will see that the CIA wasn't allowing State to edit the CIA's talking points.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 20, 2013)

Just curious.  Thoughts on Adm. Mullen's statement?


> At another point Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, questioned why no military rescue mission had been mounted, saying the U.S. didn’t even ask for assistance from NATO allies who were close to the scene.
> “I actually commanded NATO forces, and the likelihood that NATO could respond in a situation like that was absolutely zero,” Adm. Mullen fired back


 


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...enghazi-investigators-gave-clinton-he/?page=2


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 27, 2013)

Anybody watch this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57609479/60-minutes-benghazi/?pageNum=3



> Five months before that night, Morgan Jones first arrived in Benghazi, in eastern Libya about 400 miles from the capital, Tripoli.
> 
> He thought this would be an easy assignment compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. But on his first drive through Benghazi, he noticed the black flags of al Qaeda flying openly in the streets and he grew concerned about the guard forces as soon as he pulled up to the U.S. compound.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 31, 2013)

I suppose this is pretty much the nail in the coffin for that "spontaneous reaction to a youtube video" story that Susan Rice was sent out to peddle and that we had no assistance in the area.  
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/us-military-commandos-made-it-to-benghazi/?page=3



> But a second thread of the administration’s story line was that no U.S. special operations forces were deployed to Benghazi because none was within range to arrive during the eight-hour onslaught.





> But sources directly familiar with the attack tell The Washington Times that a unit of eight special operators — mostly Delta Force and Green Beret members — were in Tripoli the night of the attack, on a counterterrorism mission that involved capturing weapons and wanted terrorists from the streets and helping train Libyan forces.





> The two special operators were awarded medals for valor for helping repel a complex attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens, another American diplomat and two former Navy SEALs, but spared many more potential casualties.
> 
> “Yes, we had special forces in Tripoli, and two in fact did volunteer and engaged heroically in the efforts to save Americans,” one source told The Times. “The others were asked to stay behind to help protect Tripoli in case there was a coordinated attack on our main embassy.





> Pressed why the Pentagon and administration officials did not publicly acknowledge the special operations forces’ contribution that tragic night, the sources said officials decided that their anti-terror work inside Libya was sensitive and closely guarded. In addition, U.S. officials did not have a Status of Forces Agreement in place that would have authorized the troops’ presence, the sources said.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 31, 2013)

Scotth said:


> This whole situation has been blown out of proportion for partisan politics and nothing more.
> 
> The truth is the administration fucked up.  Congress fucked up when they cut the security budget.  Nobody wants to take responsibility, *this is about 2016 pure and simple.*



Um, no it isn't or ever was, this was about November 6th, 2012. When you have the Israelis that knew who was responsible blown off, and Rice continuously spouting off at the mouth her talking points, just goes to show how someone can lack a smidgen of common sense not to mention intelligence and still move up the ladder.

All they've done is posture, delay and shift the subject matter elsewhere before the election and have been doing it ever since.



> In a video tape released a few hours before the attack, Zawahri called on the faithful to take revenge on the United States for liquidating one of the organization's top operatives, Libyan-born Abu Yahya al-Libi in June by a US drone in northwestern Pakistan. Its release was the "go" signal for the hit team to attack the US diplomats in Benghazi. To mask their mission, they stormed the consulate on the back of a violent protest by hundreds of Islamists against a film said to insult Prophet Muhammed produced by a Florida real estate agent called Sam Bacile, who has been described as of Israeli origin.



So tell me Scott, when was this article posted?

Then, you have this tidbit that was posted 2 weeks prior to the attack.



> The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Libya. The incidence of violent crime, especially carjacking and robbery, has become a serious problem. In addition, political violence in the form of assassinations and vehicle bombs has increased in both Benghazi and Tripoli.



Frank's post on page 1 was spot the fuck on, whether this, the ACA mess, Lois Lerner, Fast and Furious etc etc:



Frank S. said:


> Did you notice? The buck no longer stops anywhere. It's a fucking volleyball game.


----------



## Scotth (Nov 1, 2013)

Centermass said:


> Um, no it isn't or ever was, this was about November 6th, 2013. When you have the Israelis that knew who was responsible blown off, and Rice continuously spouting off at the mouth her talking points, just goes to show how someone can lack a smidgen of common sense not to mention intelligence and still move up the ladder.
> 
> All they've done is posture, delay and shift the subject matter elsewhere before the election and have been doing it ever since.



If this "investigation" in all about the truth and the people lost that day like you want to suggest.  Why did Issa make a secret trip to Libya to interview people that were on the ground that day, but he didn't invite any Democrats from the committee to come on the trip?


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 1, 2013)

Because the Democrats lined up lockstep and said this was a nonissue, blamed a video so bad as to be laughable, and got pissed when people didn't buy the bullshit.


----------



## Scotth (Nov 1, 2013)

or it might be argued that after Issa's committee went to Cincinnati to interview the IRS agents involved in that "scandal".  Issa came back to Washington he release a few select quotes from the interviews to try an suggest White House involvement.  Democrats objected to the quotes and wanted the full interviews released.  Issa didn't release the full transcripts and the Democrats ended up releasing the full transcripts a week later.  After that we haven't heard dick about the IRS Scandal.

People would probably suggest that Issa learned from that incident and doesn't want anyone around that can contradict his "investigations" in the future.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 1, 2013)

Oh bullshit. The problem with your example is that with the trickle of information coming out in THAT scandal (it'sup to what, 120+ days now?) has implicated White House involvement without Issa's input.

But that's not Libya.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 1, 2013)

Scotth said:


> If this "investigation" in all about the truth and the people lost that day like you want to suggest.  Why did Issa make a secret trip to Libya to interview people that were on the ground that day, but he didn't invite any Democrats from the committee to come on the trip?



You going to answer the question I asked or just ignore it? 

This ain't about politics scott, it's about the lives of several good men that were lost and accountability-something no one from rice on up want anything to do with. They would rather it just go away.


----------



## Loki (Nov 1, 2013)

Lies and deceit live from DC.


----------



## Scotth (Nov 1, 2013)

Centermass said:


> You going to answer the question I asked or just ignore it?
> 
> This ain't about politics scott, it's about the lives of several good men that were lost and accountability-something no one from rice on up want anything to do with. They would rather it just go away.



If you want me to comment on something you post then site your quote.  I'm not going to comment on some random post.

If you want to arm chair quarterback this event by all means do it.  Hind-sight is always 20-20.

As far as travel warning being a precursor.  Since May 10th of this year the State Department has issued 34 Travel Warnings.  How many embassies have been attacked during this time?
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

Let me ask you this question.  When do you think this is going to end?  At least 13 hearings so far, how many is it going to take 20, 25, 30?  Am I the only guy that remembers the 90's?  When did the Republican's ever end an investigation that they started against Clinton?  Can you say with a straight face that this is going to end before the 2016 elections?  Republican's sure did end the investigation into the lack of WMD in Iraq, which was an argument that lead are country to war costing us 4500+ American deaths and x10 wounded.  The House Oversight Committee sure didn't hold 13 hearings over that debacle. But hey that was no more political than this investigation.


----------



## Scotth (Nov 1, 2013)

Centermass said:


> You going to answer the question I asked or just ignore it?
> 
> This ain't about politics scott, it's about the lives of several good men that were lost and accountability-something no one from rice on up want anything to do with. They would rather it just go away.




PS Both Obama and Clinton said that responsibility for what happens ultimately ends with them.  It certainly makes it a huge mistake for the administration but being responsible for a big fuck up doesn't make it a scandal.  It makes it a mistake with the most severe consequences.

A little more information:

Wiki Post on No WMD in Iraq with 123 sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Benghazi Wiki Page with 275 sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

How much more information is out there and how much more is there to learn?


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 1, 2013)

"It certainly makes it a huge mistake for the administration but being responsible for a big fuck up doesn't make it a scandal."

Lying about what happened made it a scandal......


----------



## Scotth (Nov 1, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> "It certainly makes it a huge mistake for the administration but being responsible for a big fuck up doesn't make it a scandal."
> 
> Lying about what happened made it a scandal......



There is a public account for what happened that day 1/2 hour by 1/2 hour.  What lies specifically are you referencing?


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> There is a public account for what happened that day 1/2 hour by 1/2 hour.  What lies specifically are you referencing?



"It was a video that caused it, not terrorism." On five different talk shows. That was the lie that triggered it. If it was just a fuck up, why fucking lie about it? We're modern America. We're conditioned to the point of masochism to be accepting of other people's hatred of us. Saying it was cocked up would've been ugly but true.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> PS Both Obama and Clinton said that responsibility for what happens ultimately ends with them.  It certainly makes it a huge mistake for the administration but being responsible for a big fuck up doesn't make it a scandal.  It makes it a mistake with the most severe consequences.
> 
> A little more information:
> 
> ...



a. Why/how does Iraqi WMD tie in,
b. The no WMD in Iraq is wrong.


----------



## pardus (Nov 2, 2013)

Sometimes I just shake my head at some of the things you post Scotth.

We know there were WMD in Iraq, we even found some, albeit not in the numbers we were told they thought/knew were there.
I can't believe you are defending the actions of this administration over their disgraceful conduct over Benghazi. This administration allowed an American Ambassador to get murdered, a totally preventable and expected murder.
Bringing Republicans past conduct into this is scrapping the barrel and frankly petty.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 2, 2013)

Oh, and lemme tell you a little story about something that happened in Iraq. It happened to the guys I was replacing about 72 hours before my unit arrived in theater, but the incident report was shared with my unit, so it's documented and NOT ANECDOTAL.

One night, they got a call for an "asphalt farmer" trying to sow his seed in the evening hours. Hit him with the x-spray, and he popped hot for explosives (he actually claimed it's because he was a farmer that he popped hot with the x-spray). 

So, while the appropriate people were logging him into BATS/HIDES, my guys were able to identify a burster collar on the round he had placed. Basic ord ID, and it had the key ID features of a chem round. A swipe of the chem paper showed it was mustard, with a definitive lack of hot dog vendors in the AO. Four days later, the asphalt farmer (who's now in custody) had blisters all over his arms and chest exactly where you'd expect for where he'd have carried a mustard round. Tried blaming the x-spray for it, too.

My point is that guy didn't pick up the shell at a yard sale. When we had the initial barn storming in 2003, all the ordnance that Saddam was in possession of wound up getting looted by gen pop, just like the museum in Baghdad and anywhere else they could get in. That includes all the chem rounds that Saddam never got rid of after Gulf War 1.0. Thankfully, hajji usually didn't know what he had when the mustards found their way into IEDs. 

And before you say that was a one off, I'll remind you that a couple of my brothers in the 710th, to include a couple of guys from the security element got bit by mustard while I was on that deployment, too. No WMDs my fat white ass.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 2, 2013)

Mmm...so the chemical plant in Al-Taji that I went through was just a pharmacy........didn't know "Chemical Ali" was a pharmacist.

There were WMD's...just not what people wanted it to be (nukes)


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 2, 2013)

There is a book out by a guy who flew air evac missions in OIF.  He talks about bringing guys back with blisters all over, but no one would (publicly) admit it was mustard. 

Doesn't include guys who seemed to have radiation exposure.




racing_kitty said:


> Oh, and lemme tell you a little story about something that happened in Iraq. It happened to the guys I was replacing about 72 hours before my unit arrived in theater, but the incident report was shared with my unit, so it's documented and NOT ANECDOTAL.
> 
> One night, they got a call for an "asphalt farmer" trying to sow his seed in the evening hours. Hit him with the x-spray, and he popped hot for explosives (he actually claimed it's because he was a farmer that he popped hot with the x-spray).
> 
> ...


----------



## Dame (Nov 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> If you listen to what Ms. Rice said she qualified her remarks that "at this time" this was the best assessment of what was happening and why.
> 
> From the transcript of her ABC appearance:
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week...ons-susan-rice/story?id=17240933#.UZkMf3oo7Gj



Not a single intelligent person should be quoting her "qualifying" statements. They were lies. If I knew it, then everyone knew it.



Dame said:


> Sean Smith knew shit was going down. He posted it online hours before it began. There is no way this was not sent through channels once the embassy staff saw the "police" were casing the building and taking surveillance photos.



Please stop calling this arm chair quarterbacking and hindsight. This was information out in public _before_ the attack occurred. 

Sean Smith typing online with a friend September 11, 2012: “assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ’police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

His words were released that day when his friends realized the attack had begun. Twitter was lousy with chatter on the issue as the attack was happening. There was NO WAY the powers that be did not know what had happened and who was responsible. She lied. Period. Doesn't matter who made up the lie. She insisted it was true. 
Had someone handed me that bullshit and told me to go in front of the press with it, I'd have gone alright. And I would have told the real story and then handed out the paper with the lie to let them know what bullshit they were supposed to be fed.

@Centermass is right. This isn't about politics, it's about the lives of several good men that were lost and *accountability. *By all sides.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> PS Both Obama and Clinton said that responsibility for what happens ultimately ends with them.  It certainly makes it a huge mistake for the administration but being responsible for a big fuck up doesn't make it a scandal.  It makes it a mistake with the most severe consequences.
> 
> A little more information:
> 
> ...



Still stuck on Bush......All I know, first hand, is we destroyed a chemical munitions stockpile in An Nasiriyah during DS. And that was only ONE DUMP. Fact. He used WMD's on his own people. Fact. All your wiki sources don't mean a damn thing. Just because no one found them doesn't mean they weren't there.

As it is, we're talking about the present day, one leadership failure after another and the lack of transparency this President promised as the cornerstone of his campaign promise over and over again. What is transparent is those that need to be held accountable and never show up.



> In a video tape released a few hours before the attack, Zawahri called on the faithful to take revenge on the United States for liquidating one of the organization's top operatives, Libyan-born Abu Yahya al-Libi in June by a US drone in northwestern Pakistan. Its release was the "go" signal for the hit team to attack the US diplomats in Benghazi. To mask their mission, they stormed the consulate on the back of a violent protest by hundreds of Islamists against a film said to insult Prophet Muhammed produced by a Florida real estate agent called Sam Bacile, who has been described as of Israeli origin.



Seeing how you've been tap dancing around it and still haven't answered the question, I'll answer it for you.

Israeli intel released the above *SEPTEMBER 12. 2012
*
And with the revelations pertaining to the NSA, how on earth that could be overlooked and the same story line delivered time and time again, for as long as it did, is beyond me. I'm not buying it for one second. 

The tipping point for me was 2 fold. First, when a bumbling idiot, Miss "CYA" Rice got a promotion. Second, when that pompous, arrogant, non caring, self serving, sorry ass excuse for a sitting secretary of state made the proclamation of "What difference does it make?" 

I guaran damn tee you if the shoe was on the other foot, and her precious daughter was the victim of a terrorist attack, the full brunt of every national asset we have in the inventory would have been brought to bear against those responsible.  

And regarding Issa, are you that simple in the mindset of thinking anyone in either party was denied the opportunity to travel with him to Libya? 

You're entitled to your POV scott. However, with that said, I know a little something about leadership and the lack of it with this administration. It's the only deficit larger than our negative budget. 

Oh and one other thing. Regarding Clinton and OB claiming they are ultimately responsible, those are just words. Until you MAN THE FUCK UP AND DO SOMETHING THAT SHOWS IT ACTUALLY DOES, it is what it is.....LIP SERVICE, plain and simple.


----------



## Scotth (Nov 2, 2013)

SOWT said:


> a. Why/how does Iraqi WMD tie in,
> b. The no WMD in Iraq is wrong.



Because how many House committee's investigated no WMD in Iraq?  Let me be even more clear, how many different House committee's investigated that event when their guy was in the White House.  The answer is zero.

How many different House committee's investigated Benghazi when the other sides guy was in the White House.  The answer is 5.

Their was no WMD found in Iraq that related to the argument that the White House made to invade Iraq.  There was WMD found that came from the Iran/Iraq era and much of it was so depleted it needed lab testing to verify what it was because field testing didn't yield any results.  I don't know about the gear today but when I was doing NBC Recon back in the 80's bug juice gave us positive results just to illustrate how ineffective they were.  Remember we didn't invade Iraq to clean out Iran/Iraq era weapons.  The administration argued about remotely piloted planes for dispensing chemical agents, mobile agent labs on trailers and everything else that Powell talked about at the UN.  None of it was true and left over ineffective scrap doesn't fulfill the justification that lead us into that war.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 2, 2013)

I beg to differ about ineffective, RE: my earlier post.  

But never mind, the crazy bomb chicka is just telling war stories again...


----------



## pardus (Nov 2, 2013)




----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Because how many House committee's investigated no WMD in Iraq?  Let me be even more clear, how many different House committee's investigated that event when their guy was in the White House.  ....



I don't know, it's an interesting question.  Let's go to The Google:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's  investigation, titled "POSTWAR FINDINGS ABOUT IRAQ’S WMD PROGRAMS AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND HOW THEY COMPARE WITH PREWAR ASSESSMENTS" in *2006*:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-109srpt331/pdf/CRPT-109srpt331.pdf

A related one in *2004*:  http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

News story from *June 2003*:


> The *Senate Intelligence Committee* (search) will investigate whether intelligence assessments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program -- used in part to justify the war -- were accurate, committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Wednesday.
> 
> Closed-door hearings will begin next week.
> 
> "This is an important part of Congress' oversight and we welcome it," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/11/senate-intelligence-panel-to-hold-iraq-wmd-assessment/


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Because how many House committee's investigated no WMD in Iraq?  Let me be even more clear, how many different House committee's investigated that event when their guy was in the White House.  The answer is zero.
> 
> How many different House committee's investigated Benghazi when the other sides guy was in the White House.  The answer is 5.
> 
> Their was no WMD found in Iraq that related to the argument that the White House made to invade Iraq.  There was WMD found that came from the Iran/Iraq era and much of it was so depleted it needed lab testing to verify what it was because field testing didn't yield any results.  I don't know about the gear today but when I was doing NBC Recon back in the 80's bug juice gave us positive results just to illustrate how ineffective they were.  Remember we didn't invade Iraq to clean out Iran/Iraq era weapons.  The administration argued about remotely piloted planes for dispensing chemical agents, mobile agent labs on trailers and everything else that Powell talked about at the UN.  None of it was true and left over ineffective scrap doesn't fulfill the justification that lead us into that war.


Bug Juice causes skin blisters?

You normally do a good job researching your posts; research fail you this time, forcing you to use talking points from the Democratic Underground web page?

Seriously, your arguing with folks who have 1st and 2nd hand knowledge.

A lack of Public pronouncements doesn't mean the stuff wasn't there, and potent.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 2, 2013)

I think he may be right about the false positive result from bug repellent and insecticides.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 2, 2013)

He is right about the bug juice. It was one of the training aids that I encountered at the school house during BC... And I don't mean "Before Chow."

But that wasn't 15+ rounds filled with bug juice that bit the 710th...


----------



## Rabid Badger (Nov 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I think he may be right about the false positive result from bug repellent and insecticides.


Ok, I agree. well documented and researched, all other posts, notsomuch.

IMHO - the count is something like:
Research conducted (in the field by BTDT's) 24 or so.
Inaccurate, un-researched Liberal posts: 24
Bug juice win: 1 
Thread hijacks: 10

Back to Benghazi: not over with by a long shot.


----------



## AWP (Nov 8, 2013)

Back to Libya....

This isn't going to help. Incidents like this muddy the waters and detract from what actually happened.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/politics/cbs-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> CBS correspondent Lara Logan apologized Friday and said the network was "wrong" for a "60 Minutes" report that raised questions about the Obama administration's response to last year's attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The assault left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.


 


> That story cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save Stevens and his three colleagues. The "60 Minutes" story was cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 9, 2013)

Normally, what I am about to suggest would be worthy of a tin foil chapeau and a hat tip from Alex Jones, but with this administration, anything is possible. 

What are the odds (admittedly miniscule) that the discredited source was a plant? CBS News, and especially Sharyl Atkisson (sp?) have worked damned hard on this story, which would put massive amounts of rotten egg on the already tarnished faces of the administration. Who's to say someone who was sympatico didn't elect to fall on a sword and destroy his credibility by putting out bad info. that the opposition could later be maligned for using.

Occam's Razor applies very seldom to this administration.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 9, 2013)

There seems to be a lot of people willing to be thrown under a bus for this President.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 14, 2014)

This report was released last month, and I'm surprised it hasn't been posted on here yet.  It's a really comprehensive report done by the NYT about the events surrounding Benghazi, and does a lot to refute a lot of claims made by both Republicans and Democrats.



> *A Deadly Mix in Benghazi*
> http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
> 
> Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
> ...



There's quite a bit more to it, and it's definitely worth the read.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 15, 2014)

From Washington Post.  According to this the attack could have been prevented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205


----------



## Brill (Jan 15, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> From Washington Post.  According to this the attack could have been prevented.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205



I'm shocked you read the WaPo , but seriously, .50 cal, SAF, RPG, and mortar fire sounds like a spontaneous actions caused by outrage from a movie.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 16, 2014)

The whole "the attack could have been prevented" makes for catchy headlines but what attack couldn't have been prevented in hindsight?  I looked beyond the headline and was concerned about the substance.

It seems like the NYT article is meshing with the Senate report and Mike Rodgers said he hasn't read the whole Senate report but he said it sounds pretty much the same as House Intelligence report but we will have to wait and see.

Something that doesn't get reported on much, according the Long War Journal, after the attack Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) released a statement saying,


> According to longwarjournal.org, the group issued a statement asserting that it "didn't participate as a sole entity," and that the attack "was a spontaneous popular uprising" to an anti-Islam film.[16]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Sharia_(Benghazi)


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 16, 2014)

Scotth said:


> The whole "the attack could have been prevented" makes for catchy headlines but what attack couldn't have been prevented in hindsight?  I looked beyond the headline and was concerned about the substance.
> 
> It seems like the NYT article is meshing with the Senate report and Mike Rodgers said he hasn't read the whole Senate report but he said it sounds pretty much the same as House Intelligence report but we will have to wait and see.
> 
> ...


Islamic groups never make false claims, so it's all good.

Forget about the attack, maybe not having the Ambassador in town might have been wise (UK seemed content to have their folks take a vacation)
Maybe having Military Forces available "just in case" might have mitigated the attack.
Maybe having a US Security Force, as opposed to local contractors who didn't have a vested interest in keeping the Ambassador Safe.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2014)

I dont understand why we felt the need to have a bloody embassy there in the first place! Seems like a stupid decision to me. 
I have no idea if there's an embassy in Egypt but if there is I would withdraw it immediately.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 17, 2014)

Scotth said:


> The whole "the attack could have been prevented" makes for catchy headlines but what attack couldn't have been prevented in hindsight?  I looked beyond the headline and was concerned about the substance.
> 
> It seems like the NYT article is meshing with the Senate report and Mike Rodgers said he hasn't read the whole Senate report but he said it sounds pretty much the same as House Intelligence report but we will have to wait and see.
> 
> ...




Of course they didn't Scott. Between them and wikipedia, I believe them both.

Again, I ask you jut how was it this was released within 24 hrs of the attack, with all of our allied intel sources knowing the truth, and this administration, can sit there, with a straight face, look at the American people in the eye and engage in the denials, story lines and cover ups since?

It was about November 6th and the fact this president had said as a nation, Al Q was no longer a serious threat  was on the ropes and on the run. Remember how he repeatedly reminded us that he had killed Osama Bin Laden and in doing so Al Qaeda was weakened to the point they were no longer considered a viable threat?

He then went on after the attacks to reiterate that very same talking point, time and again, until after his election and continued to hang his hat on the "Video" story line. After all, to admit he was wrong at the point, might have cost him the election. And now, in an effort to protect hillary's future, first, Rice gets promoted to a position where she can no longer be called to testify (Absolute coincidence, and how convenient, right?) The investigation committee is continually stonewalled by the state department either producing witnesses or documents this entire time.

Transparency my ass. It's now about 2016 and covering it in an effort to give that mealy mouthed liar a shot at the WH and this presidents rep. 

Again, this from September 12, 2012. (ONE DAY AFTER) And yet, here we are still, over a year later.....

*The US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three staff members at the US consulate in Benghazi  were deliberately murdered Tuesday night Sept 11 just after memorial ceremonies were held in America for the victims of the 9/11 outrage. debkafile's counter-terror sources report exclusively that far from being a spontaneous raid by angry Islamists, it was a professionally executed terrorist operation by a professional Al Qaeda assassination team, whose 20 members acted under the orders of their leader Ayman al Zawahri after special training. They were all Libyans, freed last year from prisons where they were serving sentences for terrorism passed during the late Muammar Qaddafi's rule 

In a video tape released a few hours before the attack, Zawahri called on the faithful to take revenge on the United States for liquidating one of the organization's top operatives, Libyan-born Abu Yahya al-Libi in June by a US drone in northwestern Pakistan. Its release was the "go" signal for the hit team to attack the US diplomats in Benghazi.

To mask their mission, they stormed the consulate on the back of a violent protest by hundreds of Islamists against a film said to insult Prophet Muhammed produced by a Florida real estate agent called Sam Bacile, who has been described as of Israeli origin.

The operation is rated by terror experts as the most ambitious outrage al Qaeda has pulled off in the last decade. According to our sources, the gunmen split into two groups of 10 each and struck in two stages:

1. They first fired rockets at the consulate building on the assumption that the ambassador's bodyguards would grab him, race him out of the building and drive him to a safe place under the protection of the US secret service;

2. The second group was able to identify the getaway vehicle and the ambassador's armed escort and lay in wait to ambush them. The gunmen then closed in and killed the ambassador and his bodyguards at point blank range.
*
The underlined is the bottom line for the motive behind the attack in Benghazi. Not Egypt or anywhere else, but *BENGHAZI. 
*


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2014)

pardus said:


> I dont understand why we felt the need to have a bloody embassy there in the first place! Seems like a stupid decision to me.
> I have no idea if there's an embassy in Egypt but if there is I would withdraw it immediately.





Seriously?


----------



## pardus (Jan 17, 2014)

lindy said:


> Seriously?



Yup.


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2014)

Maybe this will spur some thought?

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/the-question-to-haunt-the-west/


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 18, 2014)

lindy said:


> Maybe this will spur some thought?
> 
> http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/the-question-to-haunt-the-west/



That article made me remember how  bad of a news outlet The Washington  Times is.


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> That article made me remember how  bad of a news outlet The Washington  Times is.



Holy shit!!!! That was an OPINION PIECE!!!


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 18, 2014)

lindy said:


> Holy shit!!!! That was an OPINION PIECE!!!



I know, but I looked at the site.... Shudder....


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 29, 2014)

Posted today by Jake Tapper.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...rce-white-house-push-that-video-was-to-blame/



> New documents obtained by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch reinforce that the White House strongly argued that an anti-Muslim video was the reason for the deadly 2012 terror attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi.
> 
> This was done even though intelligence and diplomatic sources on the ground were more convinced the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in eastern Libya were carried out by terrorists and not the spontaneous work of an angry mob.
> 
> ...





> These newly released documents clearly outline that the talking points for Rice emphasize blaming the video. An email from Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, from 8:09 p.m. ET, September 14, 2012, states that among the “Goals” for the prep session with Rice: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
> 
> The context of Rhodes’ emails is, of course, that President Barack Obama was in the midst of a heated re-election campaign where one of his talking points was that he had brought a steady hand in fighting terrorists, indeed that “al Qaeda is on the run.”
> 
> The White House has long faced accusations that politics infected its response to the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, and officials’ initial insistence that they were not terrorism, but the result of a spontaneous demonstration.


----------



## Scotth (Apr 29, 2014)

Not sure there is any news in those emails.  Reading the email they confirmed the administrations public statements reflected what they were saying behind closed doors.


----------



## Brill (Apr 29, 2014)

Perhaps the emails show that the Administration's sales pitch of leadership via AQ is defeated before the Nov 2012 election was akin to a young Kevin Bacon saying it too.


----------



## Dame (Apr 29, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Not sure there is any news in those emails.  Reading the email they confirmed the administrations public statements reflected what they were saying behind closed doors.


That's a lot of words just to say, "What difference does it make!?"


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 30, 2014)

Stand by for Jon Karl's IRS audit in 3-2-1...


----------



## Centermass (Apr 30, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Stand by for Jon Karl's IRS audit in 3-2-1...



Someone else besides a Fox News correspondent was grilling him? 

Wow. That's a zinger in its own right. 

Nothing like watching someone tap dance in front of the entire world. You go Jay. Just keep telling yourself "There's no place like home"


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 30, 2014)

Carney is being served up on Twitter today.  

http://twitchy.com/2014/04/30/unbel...ey-ties-himself-in-knots-over-benghazi-email/

https://twitter.com/kesgardner/status/461564479130439681/photo/1


----------



## Brill (Apr 30, 2014)

The All oBama Channel going against the admin? There's a tremor in the Farce!


----------



## Dame (Apr 30, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Carney is being served up on Twitter today.
> 
> http://twitchy.com/2014/04/30/unbel...ey-ties-himself-in-knots-over-benghazi-email/
> 
> https://twitter.com/kesgardner/status/461564479130439681/photo/1



LOL. Yup. But you have to admit, the sight of Carney left to fend for himself is pretty amusing. He's trying to convince everyone that the White House isn't operating at Ace-Ventura-level buffoonery right now. Unfortunately when the Administration is bent over answering out their ass, it's a tough sell.


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 30, 2014)

Baghdad Carney.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 30, 2014)

The term Bull Shit has been replace by Jay Carney


----------



## AWP (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm throwing the Jay Carney flag on that.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 30, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I'm throwing the Jay Carney flag on that.



I'm tired of your Jay Carney.


----------



## JBS (Apr 30, 2014)

The Benghazi cover up was all about Hillary 2016 plain and simple.

She's still going to be President most likely, and after the tailspin Obama has put us into, the damage Hillary is going to do is going to take decades to recover from.


----------



## DA SWO (May 1, 2014)

JBS said:


> The Benghazi cover up was all about Hillary 2016 plain and simple.
> 
> She's still going to be President most likely, and after the tailspin Obama has put us into, the damage Hillary is going to do is going to take decades to recover from.


Good on her 2016 election.
The economy will tank in 2017 regardless of who is in the WH, let her deal with the fallout from the bomb she helped create.


----------



## Red Ryder (May 15, 2014)

This is great.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

Eyewitness accounts from Benghazi, aired last night.
http://therightscoop.com/heres-the-...special-with-eyewitness-accounts-of-benghazi/


----------



## pardus (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Eyewitness accounts from Benghazi, aired last night.
> http://therightscoop.com/heres-the-...special-with-eyewitness-accounts-of-benghazi/



That was great.


----------



## Crusader74 (Sep 9, 2014)

Watched it on fox at stupid o clock while on duty the other night... very good indeed.  I'm glad that those guys keep in touch with other and they have returned to some normality


----------



## pardus (Oct 11, 2014)

* 'Don't Call Us Liars': Benghazi Security Team Members Battle Dem Rep on 'Stand Down' Order *


http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/09/...-team-members-battle-dem-rep-stand-down-order
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/09/...-team-members-battle-dem-rep-stand-down-order
Congressman Schiff needs his balls kicked in.


----------



## Brill (Oct 11, 2014)

I heard the "stand down" order was emailed to the IRS so someone there MUST have an archived copy.


----------



## Dame (Oct 11, 2014)

pardus said:


> Congressman Schiff needs his balls kicked in.


No balls on that idiot. Won't defend his position other than to qualify his bullshit and refuse to face the men who were on the ground.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 12, 2016)

*THREAD: RISE FROM YOUR GRAAAAAAAAAAVE
*
House Benghazi committee files final report and shuts down
The House Select Committee on Benghazi has closed its doors and drawn the curtains.  So what did it produce?

-The Clinton email server
-28 months of fuckall about Benghazi

I hope that this is the last we have to hear about it.


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I hope that this is the last we have to hear about it.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> So what did it produce?
> 
> -The Clinton email server
> -28 months of fuckall about Benghazi
> ...



Fuckall about Benghazi? Really? 

I suppose if you ever die under questionable circumstances, a 20 minute investigation would be in order.....

Jesus h christ on a crutch.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 13, 2016)

Do we know yet where President Obama was for 8 or so hours on this night?

I also like how he skipped the next day Intel brief.....


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 13, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Fuckall about Benghazi? Really?
> 
> I suppose if you ever die under questionable circumstances, a 20 minute investigation would be in order.....
> 
> Jesus h christ on a crutch.


 I think you're misunderstanding my post.  Before the committee convened, there were SEVEN separate investigations into the Benghazi event.  It had been exhaustively investigated already.  The committee basically did not reveal anything that hadn't already been assessed by the previous investigations.  It revealed a few new details, but nothing earth-shattering, and certainly nothing worth wasting 28 months on.  Regardless of what your views on the event are, it is incredibly apparent that it was a colossal waste of time.

Seriously, read the report some time.


----------



## Etype (Dec 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think you're misunderstanding my post.  Before the committee convened, there were SEVEN separate investigations into the Benghazi event.  It had been exhaustively investigated already.  The committee basically did not reveal anything that hadn't already been assessed by the previous investigations.  It revealed a few new details, but nothing earth-shattering, and certainly nothing worth wasting 28 months on.  Regardless of what your views on the event are, it is incredibly apparent that it was a colossal waste of time.
> 
> Seriously, read the report some time.


If nothing else, it drug Hillary through the mud for 28 months at a crucial point in time.

Given the other nonsense we spend tax dollars on, I'd say it was well worth it.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 13, 2016)

Was 28 months worth it, I think so:   Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Final Report, Urges Obama Administration to Declassify as Much Information as Possible




> The widow of Benghazi hero Tyrone Woods, Dr. Dorothy Woods, recently thanked Committee Republicans for “doing their job,” and said the report has “given me closure.” She said critics of the committee have “been dismissive. The committee’s been ridiculed. The committee has been, they’ve been criticized. And for them to sincerely do the right thing, to care about Americans, that’s what’s important.”
> 
> “I am thankful for Congressman Gowdy and his committee for remembering that they are in fact servants of the people of the United States, and they took the time to answer questions that weren’t answered.”


----------

