Was Benghazi "testimony" just political theater?
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.
VAN SUSTEREN: "You have gone through all the documents, you have talked to people weeks leading up to this. I'm curious, did you learn anything new today?"
ISSA: "I think the American people learned today from these brave witnesses, these whistleblowers, that the facts as we were told before during and after the attack at Benghazi simply aren't what they really were. The acting ambassador after Ambassador Stevens was murdered, what they did told us in great detail about what happened that day and what happened in the days to follow and why we should know that he knew and everyone else in the mission new from the moment it happened, from the get- go, as he said, that this was a terrorist attack."
The identity and the purpose of the attackers have been public knowledge for many weeks. Ask U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice who was skewered and barbecued for suggesting otherwise.
So, was this hearing and the factually void testimony of three witnesses, cast as "whistleblowers" in the published libretto, just another example of political theater staged by one or the other party to resemble transparency?
{1} http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013 … le-blowersThank you, Ms. Durham, for your viewpoint.
I gather many citizens actually did listen to those key witnesses, all brave and honorable men in my opinion. However, as Rep Issa tacitly admitted, no new information was produced beyond the truth that was already known.
Therefore, Ms. Durham, is it your opinion that the “testimony” revealed new facts or was just for show?
Let us hope the committee gets around to this point eventually.
It now appears that Rep. Darrel Issa lied to the American people when he promised his three Benghazi "whistleblowers" would produce revelations that would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton. They were not. They did not even come close!
In retrospect, his star witness turned out to be a riveting storyteller but of little other use to the chairman in his quest to scuttle any chance of a Clinton presidential campaign bid in 2016. The magnitude of his attacks is further testimony coming out of this otherwise non-event of how much the GOP fears the prospect of her running.
As for Rep. Issa’s “damaging” witness…
“Hicks had his grievances with how events in Benghazi were handled, but his gripes were about bureaucratic squabbles rather than political scandal.”
“Hicks said he thought a flyover by U.S. jets could have deterred the second of the two attacks that night, but he declined to question the judgment of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said there was no way to get the fighters there in time.”
“Hicks was of little use to Republicans in their efforts to connect the lapses in the Benghazi response to Clinton or to the Obama White House.”
“He said that he spoke to Clinton by phone at 2 a.m. that night and that she supported his actions. He undermined one of Issa’s claims — that Clinton had rejected an increase in security for the Libya facilities — when he agreed that the secretary of state’s name appears on all cables, even if she doesn’t write them.”
“Hicks did have some damning things to say about the State Department trying to block him from cooperating with Issa’s committee. But that wasn’t quite the evidence Issa had promised: that politics drove the administration’s response to Benghazi.”
“Instead of hearing a tale of political shenanigans, those in the audience (including Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota) heard a far better story of confusion and desperation on the ground.”
For 39 drama filled minutes, Hicks “held lawmakers from both parties rapt as he recounted the events of that terrifying night — revealing a made-for-Hollywood plot with a slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion.” {1}
In the end, the much-trumpeted “whistleblower’s” testimony suggested incompetence but not criminality. Truly political theater without substance.
{1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.htmlThank you for your historical critique.
Thank you for your viewpoint.
What is funny is that nobody wants to believe anything that Obama and his minions state but the reality of the "Spooks" at that the CIA ran the blundering mess and where could you possibly get any clarity of the event when they spin it up.
What is even funnier is the mockudrama the slimebags are making of this instance of failed foreign relations resulting in casualties. How can we forget "Howdy Doody"?
Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
0 Oh yeah obviously people from Italy can arrive in time even in people from Tripoli (the nearest city) can't
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Good evening, Jaxson. Thanks for your comments.
*sigh*
Rep. Issa promised his three Benghazi "whistleblowers" would produce revelations that would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton. They were not. They did not even come close!
Following the testimony of his three “whistleblowers,” Rep Issa admitted to Fox News that the only new revelation from the testimony was “this was a terrorist attack.” The public already knew this; ergo nothing new was learned from the testimony. Incompetence? Perhaps, but no evidence of criminality. I shall leave it to you to use your top and string to spin this any way you want.
As you can see, the posts you responded to quoted from accounts published by Fox News and the Washington Post Opinion Page.
If you find an error in any of my statements, please point it out to me.
If you do not find an error in any of my statements, please feel free to attack my sources as left wing.
Thank you for sharing and have yourself a good night.Hey Jaxson. Swift reply.
1- “Hillary lied to Congress”: There is no evidence Ms. Clinton lied to Congress.
2- “Hilliary lied to everybody.” Raine hyperbole.
3- “Hillary is guilty of dereliction of duty.” Only in your own mind. Guilt and innocence is determined in a court of law and not by Jaxson Raine.
Thank you for sharing your objectivity with us.Sorry, Jaxson. I read what you wrote and I read it again as you ordered me to do. I believe that you truly believe what you said is true and I am willing to leave it at that.
Thanks for sharing.Yes, Jaxson, I can tell the difference and you are correct.
Now may I go to bed?
- Sooner28posted 10 years ago0
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Hey there, EA. Thanks a lot for your post but I think you have a serious problem with your facts when you say, “After Fast and Furious, I don't know why Holder even has his job.” You may be the only person who does not already know that AG Eric Holder had nothing to do with Fast and Furious.
After an intense investigation, Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported to congress that the Attorney General had no involvement with the highly flawed operation conducted at ATF.
“Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz refuted claims that Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder and other high ranking DOJ officials oversaw the botched gunwalking operation Fast and Furious… Horowitz produced findings of his investigation into Fast and Furious which placed the blame squarely upon the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and the Arizona Attorney General’s office for gross and reckless misconduct.” {1}
CNN had this to say about the IG’s investigation into Fast and Furious:
“The report said Holder was not aware of the tactic being used…” {2}
I guess the lesson here suggests that it does not always pay to shot from the lip without checking your facts first.
{1} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html
{2} http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/us/fast-furious-reportPlease excuse my hasty reply. It is late.
You did not say Holder was involved. You said, “After Fast and Furious, I don't know why Holder even has his job.” Me bad.
EA, I find it odd that people accuse them of having ties without having a shred of evidence. If you have evidence, produce it and I, along with the entire country, will agree with you.
Otherwise, we can continue to work together to find something we agree on.
You stay well and have a good night.
"By their own admission" makes no sense to me.
In a public statement, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee declared, “I was impressed by the professionalism, thoroughness and scope of the report.” {1}
Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report to congress established that Attorney General Eric Holder had no involvement with the highly flawed Fast and Furious operation that the IG said was conducted by the ATF and the Arizona Attorney General's office. {2}
{1} http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/ig-r … d-furious/
{2} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.htmlTo cling to conflict of interest illusions and unrelated unresolved issues might also be seen as a form of lunacy. I rely on facts and not theories. At this time, there is no evidence AG Eric Holder was responsible for the Fast and Furious operation that the IG said was conducted by the ATF and the Arizona Attorney General's office. Together, we can wait to see if any evidence surfaces in the future.
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Good Evening, Jaxson.
Surely you understand how ridiculous it is for you to suggest that the Inspector General of the DOJ failed in the performance of his sworn duty without offering a single fact to support such a slanderous notion. The IG was praised for his report and his contributions to the investigattion by the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee. I think you have already nullified the significance of this fact in another post.
There is no evidence at this time that AG Eric Holder was responsible for the Fast and Furious operation. I seem unable to make this one simple truth understood. I know it is hard for some folks to accept this single fact. Truthfully, I tire of some insisting that incriminating evidence does exists when nobody, not you, not anyone, can say with ANY degree of certainty that it does exist. If you and others wish to cling to the hope that evidence may someday surface, then go right ahead.
However, I shall not waste my time repeating that no additional evidence exists at this time. When someone produces new evidence then everyone will know for sure that such evidence does exist. Jaxson Raines’ conviction is not proof evidence exists. Imaginary dash-cams withheld from an imaginary trial is not proof evidence exists. Using quotation marks to enclose a fictitious statement is not proof evidence exists. A personal perception of rationality is not proof evidence exists. One’s personal opinion of the AZ AG is not proof evidence exists. There is no proof of the existence of any additional evidence only blind conviction lacking any form of substance. Those who cling to such convictions are welcome to them.
There is no more that I can say. Facts are facts and I choose not to rely upon imaginary facts that have not been verified and established. I shall wait to see if more evidence ever surfaces in the future. I grant you the last word on this subject.
.
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Just to be fair since there really is no difference between the two.
Wait one second, straighten out your panties.
This is the United States, there is a right to free speech.
OK
Take another second.
Watch me exercise that right
Done, now you can sick the IRS on me!As is my right!
And we wonder why a certain segment of the population continues to be apoplectic
about Benghazi. They take Breitbart and similar "news" sites as gospel -- because it feeds
their Obama hatred.
Here you can see how blatantly Breitbart distorts the story:
Breitbart Distorts Report on Why Obama Administration Won’t Let Military Capture Benghazi Suspects
A very false headline
Here is ow Breitbart.com is reporting the story of how the FBI has identified five possible suspects in the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission last year:
REPORT: OBAMA WON’T LET MILITARY CAPTURE BENGHAZI SUSPECTS!
An AP report via Fox Nation claims that although the FBI has identified five men believed to have been behind the September 11 Benghazi attacks, those men remain free because President Barack Obama will not allow the military to seize them.
According to the report, the FBI says it has evidence sufficient to support seizing the men as “suspected terrorists.” Yet because such an action would have to be carried out by the military, Obama appears unwilling to authorize it.
Therefore, for the time being, the men are free while the FBI seeks enough additional evidence to clear a higher legal hurdle—which means “gathering enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court.”
According to the AP, that is what “the Obama administration prefers.”
Above is the Breitbart story in its entirety.
All 127 words of it.
Below are portions of the much longer, much more detailed story Breitbart cited:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn’t enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.
The men remain at large while the FBI gathers evidence. But the investigation has been slowed by the reduced U.S. intelligence presence in the region since the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, and by the limited ability to assist by Libya’s post-revolutionary law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which are still in their infancy since the overthrow of dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The preference is toward a process in which most are apprehended and tried by the countries where they are living or arrested by the U.S. with the host country’s cooperation and tried in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using military force to detain the men might also harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments with whom the U.S. is trying to build partnerships to hunt al-Qaida as the organization expands throughout the region.
The story goes on in great detail on a variety of subjects related to these possible suspects, different options available to the US regarding apprehending them, using drone strikes, or military force, as well as the politics surrounding the Obama Administration’s handling of the attacks.
But do note the difference in the AP story, and the way Breitbart.com has spun it.
So going all the way back to the OP, is Benghazi political theater? All I can say is, the reporting of it is theatrical!
Related Discussions
- 55
Benghazi Hearing
A couple of notes from the hearing so far.Several key witnesses who were actually in Libya at the time Benghazi was attacked were ordered by lawyers from the Secretary of State not to testify to Congress.Lt. Col. Gibson's special forces team in Tripoli was ordered not to go to Benghazi.The special...
- 97
The Benghazi GOP investigation
After more than two years and $7 million spent by the Benghazi Committee under taxpayer funds, it had to today report that it had found nothing — nothing — to contradict the conclusions that the independent accountability board, or the conclusions of the prior multiple earlier investigations...
- 18
Benghazi--The phony scandal that won't go away
However Obama and the Democrats are deliriously desirous that this "phony" scandal would go away, it won't. Simply put the reason for its longevity in the minds of folks who seriously care that 4 Americans were killed during the terrorist attack on the consulate,...
- 46
Obama's deception about Libya
From the Daily Beast and CNBC:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … ative.htmlhttp://www.cnbc.com/id/49110439It's on FOX, too, but I know the libs wouldn't trust that source. lol
- 61
AG Barr a No-Show at House Hearing
AG Barr defied the House Committee invitation to appear. On the most basic level, I think he should have appeared. I think his absence will be the only message heard, but ...I can understand why he took this step. Democrat Representative Steven Cohen of Tennesee illustrated the mindset and purpose...
- 27
WHITE HOUSE LIES!!!
Spin this:New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside GatesThe deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night....