jump to last post 1-31 of 31 discussions (386 posts)

Was Benghazi "testimony" just political theater?

  1. Quilligrapher profile image90
    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago

    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?
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
    {1} http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013 … le-blowers

    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In a word, yes.  It was and is political theater.  It's like looking for Saddam's WMDs.  They are going to keep looking until they can find the "facts."  Isn't a fact something that you already have that is tangible evidence.  They play the what if game;  What if was a terrorist attack; what if it was a cover-up.  Let's keep looking for whistle blowers that will fit our narrative that is the President did something or nothing for political reasons. 

      The constitution says we can't be tried more than once, boy they can continue their investigation until they find something that fits.  Here is what Jon Stewart said.  And for you people that think he is just a comedian,  I believe he is pure genius.

      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-m … share_copy

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08 … end/193964
        Don't you just hate when this happens??
        John Bolton, inadvertent whistleblower on the whistleblowers.
        Oops.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, it wasn't just political theater.
      I think they thought that most citizens would actually listen to those key witnesses,  would want to find out the truth.

      What WAS just political theater, however, was the numerous times when Obama, Hillary, and Susan Rice played head games with all of America,  lying and distracting from the facts by blaming everything on a guy who made a video.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank 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?
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    3. GNelson profile image85
      GNelsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is amazing that we can have a war started with a lie and costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars and these same people, congress, thought it was OK!  The question should be how do we prevent this in the future.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And we already know the answer to that is: We can't.
        We can't prevent it from happening again.

        Well, I I suppose we could pull out all of our diplomatic forces in the Middle East.
        And replace them all with military forces.
        The people who are so undone over Benghazi don't seem fazed whatsoever when
        the casualties are in the thousands ....of American troops.

      2. peoplepower73 profile image88
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        GNelson:  An excellent point.  The GOPs dream goal is to impeach Obama by comparing Benghazi to Watergate.  They don't realize that if he is impeached, they get Biden. 

        That's a propaganda technique called "false equivalence", where one event with a lower magnitude is compared to another event of a much higher magnitude to make them seem equivalent.

        They also want to nail Hillary with some kind of dereliction of duty, because she serves as such a threat to the GOP.  You have to give them credit for starting early on their campaign.

        They say that repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a form of insanity.  I'll leave it at that.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image92
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The  great GOP spin machine is addressing that FACT as well, Peoplepower.
          When someone points out that Iraq War was stared on lies, the defensive retort is:
          Everyone had the same information. And Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

          As to the false equivalence, the "math" I've heard is Benghazi = Watergate + Iran Contra x 10. That's a pretty big effort to equivocate!

          But am I missing something?
          Does anyone really believe that President Obama and SOS Clinton deliberately orchestrated the attack on the embassy?
          Because both of those other scandals were much more than "coverups." They were engineered and executed in by Nixon and Reagan, respectively.

          Finally, does anyone else notice a "the party doth protest too much" pattern?
          SInce we're still investigating conspiracy theories, how far-fetched is it to speculate
          that if anyone set this whole thing up, it was someone with a whole lot of money and
          a lot to gain by making Obama look inept or weak against terrorism.
          Hmmmm.

      3. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Let us hope the committee gets around to this point eventually.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ooh, ooh, pick me! I know! I know!

          1 - Don't send ambassadors long-term into locations that don't meet a single requirement for security.
          2 - Don't reject the requests of your ambassadors for upgrading security to meet standards.
          (We aren't even talking about personnel, we are talking about facilities. Safe-rooms, air systems, walls, gates, doors, etc...)
          3 - Don't reject the requests of your ambassadors for more security personnel when they are in high-threat areas.
          4 - Don't ignore when an ambassador is attacked half a dozen times, and has intel that more and worse attacks are coming.
          5 - Don't reduce the security teams of ambassadors that have been attacked multiple times recently, in high-threat areas.
          6 - Don't go against SOP and refuse to send assets when an attack happens.

          Just off the top of my head. There's a whole lot more in the ARB report, and even more from those men who were directly involved.

    4. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Factually void testimony?

    5. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html

    6. 61
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If it is political theater, we are merely in the second act.  The first act was ignoring a foreign policy disaster at the expense of the American Ambassador to Libya because it was inconveniently close to election day;  Who knows what the playwrights have in mind for Act III?  It maybe disaster for the villain and triumph for the hero or it maybe, as is most likely, a tragedy were nothing truly good happens.  We have been treated to this spectacle before, but no one died in the Watergate break in - and that was certainly political theater in high dudgeon - after all Nixon got us out of Vietnam and initiated Rapprochement   with the Anti-War Lefts favorite Communists in China.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for your historical critique.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    7. 61
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It appears that another theatrical production is about to eclipse everything giving Obama/Hillary a chance to push the public attention to "renegade" IRS agents harassing conservative and Jewish groups.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I haven't heard anything about that?
        They're finding other scapegoats now?


        And I dunno if any post here has mentioned it or not, but Hillary's feigned- righteous indignation was a manipulation even as she was coming unglued in front of the committee.
        Here's what she said-----------

        "With all due respect, the fact is we had 4 dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again Senator."

        A protest?   Some guys "out for a walk one night"??
        What the heck?   There was another option-----------pre-planned TERRORISM!!

        Even her ranting "What difference does it make?" was designed to distract from the fact that it was terrorism!    I don't understand how anybody can be so manipulative as to try to continue the lie even while they're so angry at being caught in a lie.   Now, she and Obama and Susan Rice and others like them ARE doing "just political theater".

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I do love how they call asking Clinton to testify about Benghazi and the events leading up to the attack and afterwards are "political theater" and "just a means to discredit" her and "make a show". Um...no...it was HER JOB! She was in charge. The requests for additional security came through her State Department. The phone call came to HER.
          And now Carney is attempting to make everyone believe that they needed some 21 odd emails to change "a couple of words" in their public statements after the attack. Yeah, right Carney.

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I know it!  It's crazy.

          2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this
            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Something to consider....from your own source:

              "Greg Hicks - the No. 2 official in Libya at the time of the strike that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans - told the committee he believed the report "let people off the hook."

              and

              "Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., appearing later on the show, said she was "surprised today to hear that they did not probe Secretary Clinton in detail, because obviously she was the decision maker at the State Department." She recalled testimony last week from Hicks and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya, that "facility requirements for the consulate in Benghazi, the waiver of those requirements, by law, apparently, have to come from the secretary of state."

              Please note the words "by law".

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'd rather note the word "apparently." It means that she really doesn't know if its by law or not and she is just assuming.

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No it doesn't mean that.

                  By definition it means as far as one knows or can see.

                  SOP is that by law any waiver of requirements must be approved by the Secretary of State. What they won't commit to, for political reasons, is if the law was followed.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Right, as far as she knows. So she doesn't really know or she would just say she knows that to be a fact.

        2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No you're right, the only thing that matters now is the semantics and how we label the event. Who cares about actually catching who did it? Just as long as some democrats get knocked off right?

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sure we care about who did it. What has the Administration done about that btw?

            Of course, nothing, because in Hillary's words "what difference does it make?" Very telling words there.

      2. 0
        SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True but you know what is funny (odd, not haha funny)...back in October of 2012 there was this claim:

        "Root is now calling for congressional hearings “to determine if the Obama administration is misusing its power to damage or ruin the lives, drain the finances, or just distract Obama’s critics and political opposition"

        http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/columbia-cla … punish-me/

        The President even joked about using the power of the IRS ....

        http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski … iting-joke

        It is interesting to note that conservative groups were laughed at and ridiculed when they made this claim back during the Presidential campaign isn't it?

        Okay...you got me off topic though....

        ......good night! lol

    8. Patriot Quest profile image60
      Patriot Questposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why do so many of you dismiss this as political?  This is about Americans that could have easily been saved!  Your president left his office at 5 pm as the attacks were under way!  That report was re written 12 times after Carney said they only changed ONE word?  Why does the white house get a pass?  I don't care if it was pub or dem,...........this was about Obama not wanting drama right before an election.........the lives of Americans meant less then winning for him!  Or at least the FACTS seem to move us in that direction!  Now we have the IRS targetting conservative groups!  I remember all you liberals laughing at us because we believed with Obama the government would start raiding our homes,.............seems we were right AGAIN!

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for your viewpoint.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    9. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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"?


      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8001760_f248.jpg

      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This idea that we blame Obama for the embassy being attacked is crazy and an attempt at distraction. If he had come out on September 12th and said hey, our embassy was attacked by terrorists and an ambassador has been killed along with 3 others we would have stood behind him. Instead he lied and blamed our freedoms. Nice try though.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nobody has proven a thing and they never will as long as the CIA and congress have anything to do with it. Too much Fox News hysteria on your part.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I know enough to make the statements I have.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You know what the CIA will let you or anybody else know. In almost every instance this scenario plays out that the truth is so far from the details nobody can prove a thing.

              1. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Whatever.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Precisely!

        2. 83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are many people blaming him for the attack?  I think most people are blaming him for not having more security and for lying about what happened in order to get re-elected.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know of anyone blaming him for the attack. Some on this thread are acting as if we are though. They keep reminding us that other embassies were attacked while Bush was president as if it means something.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. 83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Basically, some people are saying that George Bush was worse?  That's the defense? 

          I guess it's better than blaming Bush.  He's already responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened, since the beginning of time; he'll be responsible for every bad thing that will happen. I'll be happy when the Bush statute of limitations expires for liberals.

          I might be wrong, but I don't think this is about the fact that terrorists attacked.  It's about no attempt to be prepared for an attack that was pretty obvious and the lying after the attack.  So much for transparency.

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry you can't connect the dots. The posting was to relate to the outraged Republicans that were outraged when these things happened to Bush. I did not blame bush for a thing. I only related the posting to the way the partisan attacks choose their targets.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    But Brenda, these witnesses were nobodies. I mean, only a highly decorated career servant, who was in charge of EVERYTHING in Libya. What good would his testimony be? He was only the ultimate contact point between every single person in Libya and every single person in Washington!

    Oh, and the head of FEST? A man who had led the FEST team on two missions in the past successfully already? Yeah, who cares about him. The testimony of the leader of the team that was created to respond to situations EXACTLY like this? Yeah, who cares about that?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So far, it seems everyone, and I mean everyone (no matter how well-known or respected) who has dared to try to hold the Administration to any responsibility for anything has been scapegoated and mocked.   Those witnesses are no exception, apparently.

      The misplaced vengeance of the far Left knows no bounds.   They are heartless and robotic.   Humanity is dispensible, all the way from the unborn to the most highly-decorated servicemen,  while the earth and animals are promoted as the most precious things in the universe.   I think maybe that's what's going on in the Administration---each person knows they're dispensible if they don't follow the agenda,  so they're in effect fighting each other for their own individual survival while pretending to be friends.   There is no honor among thieves.    And .... the house of cards will fall eventually.   Whether it will be in time to save the integrity of America including the citizens, I dunno.   It certainly didn't come in time to save any of the people under attack in Benghazi.

      Those men who testified, though, are very brave and worthy of a lot of respect!   As are the Senators and etc.  who made a platform for them to publicly tell the truth.    I hope the families of the murdered people are getting at least some comfort in knowing that this issue isn't going away.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, that's just rich, coming from a Conservative whose entire outlook on life is "Death to everyone who isn't a rich white Christian male!"

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Can you link to where Brenda said that?

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, she did not say that at all.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  3. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago

    Honestly, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    It is certainly legitimate to ask questions to figure out what happened. There isn't much doubt that mistakes were probably made.

    However, this is at least the third hearing that they have had on this matter. Each time, the GOP tries to play it up as the worst scandal since Watergate and Iran Contra (Ironically, if anyone actually looked into that, no one would ever claim Reagan to be a great president) put together.

    If the GOP wants answers, fine do the investigation. However, stop acting like this is the first time something like this has ever happened considering that 13 embassy attacks occurred when Bush was president.

    Did anybody want answers then?

    1. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course not.
      What's 13 embassy attacks in the grand scheme of two Bushco wars? A drop in the bucket.
      Besides, Bush kept us safe from terrorists dontcha know.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    The whole thing is faux outrage. It's all political theater.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … tons-rise/
    For anyone who wants to revisit the comment by comment in the hours preceding, during
    and following the attack.
    Candidate Romney did not miss a beat in trying -- unsuccessfully -- to turn it to his
    advantage.

    Benghazi didn't stop Obama from getting reelected in 2012.

    But they're still terrified of Hillary Clinton and are pulling out all the stops to discredit
    her.
    Apparently, it hasn't been working.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … tons-rise/

  5. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    If you look up factually void in the dictionary, you get a picture of Dick Cheney.
    For those who find the right wing's outrage over Benghazi at best disengenous,
    here's an interesting thought.
    What's good for the goose should be really good force fed to the gander.
    Cheney fois gras. Mmmm.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abra … mg00000037

    1. 83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your justification for the faillure of Benghazi is that Cheney was worse?

    2. Superkev profile image86
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So basically what you are saying is that because you think the last administration made some bad mistakes, THIS administration is immune from criticism or being held accountable in any way, is that correct?

      We should just let them do what they want and let them lie about it afterwards, right? Because it's racist to hold Obama accountable for the decisions that led to the first ambassador killed in 30+ years and the lives of two brave SEALs who did the right thing even when this administration abandoned them and Chris Stevens to be murdered, right?

      Talk about a lack of integrity.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Partisanship at its finest.

        Ruining America.

        No integrity.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nope I think everyone is just sick of Benghazi being blown up as issue of the year when four people died and yet in the instances when thousands of Americans have been killed in situations where the lies caused their deaths (and in that is not the case with Benghazi) we see no conservative outrage at all. It shows a magnificent double standard.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is not what I am saying.
        I am saying that Dick Cheney calling for Hillary Clinton to be subpoenaed to testify is opening himself up to the same demands.
        She does have things to answer for. There is a reason the official version of the events
        in got whitwashed.
        In hindsight (now, May 2013) it's ridiculous. Of COURSE we are still vulnerable to
        terrorist attacks. Abroad and at home. We have been for years before Bush and will continue to be.
        But the equation between Cheney and Clinton/Obama is spelled out the article.
        How come there was never even an investigation into the so-called "mistakes" made
        by the Bush administration?
        How come Cheney has not been called to answer for the hundreds of thousands of
        people who died on his watch?

        I am not minimizing the death of Ambassador Stevens or the three other people who died in service to our country. That is four too many deaths.
        But orders of magnitude, way off the carnage perpetrated by Bush and Cheney.

        Are you saying that these four people's lives are MORE important than any other American service person killed in the line of duty?
        That is the impression being given.
        And Obama's race has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Why do you continue to bring it up?

        1. Superkev profile image86
          Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          George Bush and Dick Cheney, the two most powerful men in the Obama administration.

          Blaming Bush to deflect criticism of The Won never get's old does it?

          1. peoplepower73 profile image88
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It shouldn't get old,  that's their legacy.  They can try to re-write history, but it's not going to work!  It's not a matter of deflecting criticism.  It's a matter of a double standard.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              lmao

              re-write history? That is exactly what this Administration is trying to do right now and apparently all the sheeple and kool-aid drinkers are buying it.

              Carney in his statement claimed that Susan Rice never blamed a video and maintained the possibility of it being a terrorist attack. Claimed the WH always maintained the same thing. Really? They seem to have forgotten they are on video live and out loud saying the opposite.

              "JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive."

              Susan Rice on one of her many Sunday visits on the talk show circuit after watching Carney in that video.

              "WALLACE: You don't really believe that?

              RICE: Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world."

              Who is it that is trying to re-write history?

              And apparently everyone here has forgotten the Senate's investigation into the WMDs and the Iraq War as well.

              http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

              "We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq did not have any WMD programs. On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs."

              The information from the source was not accurate, however, it was not a lie of the Administration. Was the information deliberately inaccurate? I don't think anyone ever came to any conclusion on that piece of the puzzle. That still is not a lie of the Administration but faulty intelligence information.

      3. peoplepower73 profile image88
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Superkev:  How do you know they lied? Nobody said anything about  racism towards Obama, except you.  How did the administration abandoned them?  Yes it took ten hours for the event to take place, but that is information after the fact.  They didn't know that as the event was unfolding.   The GOP really doesn't care if the American people find out or not.  The GOP is just looking for a criminal act to crucify Obama. Eric Holder and the senate will have to prosecute Obama...Good luck with that with a Democratically controlled senate.  They are throwing the proverbial sand into the wind.

        1. Superkev profile image86
          Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They said it was the result of a protest of a You tube video, Susan Rice repeated that lie on every Sunday morning show they could convince to book her.

          The In-Extremis Force was ordered to stand down, that order can only come from POTUS. Obama said he didn't tell anyone to stand down, that's a lie too.

          There's a whole bunch more, like the 12, count 'em 12, revisions to the talking points the WH said they didn't change but once. But let's start with those lies and move on to the others.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Dereliction of duty happens when, among other reasons, you go against SOP. SOP in a situation like that is to immediately move assets. You contact the foreign government to get air-clearance for a flyover, and if needed, tactical strikes. You get the rapid-response teams moving immediately.

          Since you don't know how long a situation is going to last, you move immediately, and don't stop until you have dealt with the situation. That's SOP. We have a team specifically designed to do just that, in just this type of situation. They were not used. That's against SOP. That's dereliction of duty.

          The joint chief(IIRC) also lied, when he said it would take 20 hours to scramble an F-16 to, at a minimum, fly over the area. A couple problems with that.

          1 - Even if it takes 20 hours, you start scrambling immediately. You don't know that it will be over before then. That's SOP.
          2 - It doesn't take 20 hours. They claimed it would take 2-4 hours just to fuel and arm, but that can be done in under 30 minutes. 15 minutes if it's a ready-alert bird. What's more, we can take one of our Airborne divisions, that isn't on ready-alert, get them in the air, and para-drop them a quarter of the way around the world, and have them on the ground, in less than 20 hours. It's complete crap. The defense liaison knew the resources they had, he said 2-4 hours to have a bird there.
          3 - We never even asked for clearance to fly a bird over Benghazi from the Libyan government. They would have given it, they had previously given us clearance to fly drones. We didn't get that ball rolling either.
          4 - You don't tell a SF team that they can't go. Lt. Col. Gibson said "This is the first time a diplomat has more balls than the military."

          Lies and Dereliction of duty, at a minimum, from multiple people high up in Washington.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            NO one would have arrived in time. So your argument here is the administration failed because they did not do things that would not have helped at all and may have exposed more Americans to danger.

            Amazing.

            It was easier and safer to evacuate Benghazi, which was done.

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Aviano, Italy is 3 hours away, attack lasted 10 hours, what you just said is wrong.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nope attack did not last ten hours, first attack lasted less than two, attack on second facility lasted less than one, they would never have arrived for the first and they would not have been in the right place for the second one.

                There was actually a team in Tripoli that was sent (six man team) which is less than an hour away by plane (though really three for fueling preparation landing, and disembark etc.) and still was never able to fire a shot. How could a team from Italy could get there in time when a team from Tripoli could not?

                They couldn't possibly have done so.

                1. Superkev profile image86
                  Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The team from Tripoli was ordered to stand down, that's how.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope that is the FEST team, it was ordered to stand down, the six man ambassadorial protection team was sent.

                    Official timeline: 1:30 a.m. -- A six-man security team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives in Benghazi.


                    They were there within two hours and were still not able to do a thing.

                    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world … i-timeline

                    Ah so quick to get outraged so slow to know anything about the incident.

              2. Superkev profile image86
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually it's only about 2 hours away for an F-16 flying sub-sonic, plus we had AC-130's at Sigonella that could have been there in about 2 hours as well.

                So to say there was nothing that could have been done is patently false, those two SEALs were still alive 6 hours in to the event. Obama left them there calling for help that never came.

                The good news is he was on time for his fund raiser in Las Vegas on the 12th. You have to have priorities, right?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yeah obviously people from Italy can arrive in time even in people from Tripoli (the nearest city) can't tongue

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They can't arrive in time when ordered not to. You don't get what the problem is do you?

          2. peoplepower73 profile image88
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            JaxsonRaine:  Just out of curiosity, you keep talking about SOP, which is Standard Operating Procedure, and giving details as to how long it takes to launch and fly assets. You sound like you were in some high level Special Ops in the military Command and Control. If you don't mind me asking, what is your background in this area?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nothing more than information gathered from sources. Everything from declassified materials to the testimonies of soldiers, special forces, generals, etc...

              Looking at historic performance of the military helps tremendously to see what normal response times are like as well, but mostly from manuals and testimonies.

        3. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          " How did the administration abandoned them?  Yes it took ten hours for the event to take place, but that is information after the fact.  They didn't know that as the event was unfolding."

          That is the point, what if it had lasted for days, did Obama use a crystal ball? You just got to the heart of the matter and you don't even know it.

        4. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do we know they lied, three witnesses said they told them it was a terrorist attack and they still told us it wasn't! If that isn't enough then this is a big clue.

          If someone wants to go after Cheny go ahead, nobody is preventing that.

          http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … eferences/

        5. Patriot Quest profile image60
          Patriot Questposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do we know they lied?  How about the witnesses who were told to keep their mouths shut? doesn't that raise suspicion? How about phone calls days earlier from the embassy saying they thought trouble was coming?   If the Republicans want to hang Dems they are going about it way too softly for me!  They need to ask tough questions and put more people on the stand!   Doesnt matter what party you are for,  When politicians lie intentionaly and try to cover it up then they should be punished..........period!

  6. 83
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Nixon said, "I am not a crook."

    I expect Obama to say, "I did not lie in order to get re-elected."

    1. mike102771 profile image83
      mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Name an American President (in modern times) who did not lie so they could get elected or reelected.

      1. 83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're justifying Obama's lies by saying he's not the first to do it?  Great defense.

        Hope and CHANGE.  I hope the change ends quickly.

        1. mike102771 profile image83
          mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hope and change was the biggest con of the 21 century. A promise of nothing that was delivered. My fear is that this becomes another birther thing making it possible for more "hope" in the future.

  7. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    If Obama had done his duty, followed SOP, and cancelled his fundraiser, I would have given him props. The fact that he put his fundraiser above Americans, and above his personal representative... I still see red thinking about it. I would shout out against any POTUS who did such a thing.

    I'm not some partisan hack. I'm unhappy with approximately 95% of what "conservatives" in Washington do.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think you're a partisan hack, but I do think your views are skewed to see more evil with the actions of liberals than with conservatives.  I admit that mine is skewed in the reverse and I also do not think I am a partisan hack.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well you're wrong, I'm actually harder on fake conservatives than I am on liberals. At least liberals are more honest about what they want. Fake conservatives pretend they are for smaller government, then sign into existence agency after agency after agency. Hypocrites... I can't stand hypocrites. They're almost as bad as bigots.

  8. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    *sigh*

    The testimony that it would take 20 hours to scramble an F-16 is complete bullocks.

    He didn't undermine Issa's claim, that's patently false. While it is true that any cable will have her name, as the witness testified any actions regarding an ambassador in a high-threat area that doesn't meet security standards goes through her personally.

    Additionally, Stevens was there on special assignment from Clinton, she was well aware of the lax security in Libya, and had seen it herself.

    Further, the witnesses showed that they were blocked by the State Department and the ARB in the case of the head of FEST in the investigation, and that several key options were told by Washington to stand down.

    Of course, Quill, if all you're going to do is get your recaps of these hearings from left-wing media sources that practically lick the ground Obama walks on, then you really can't expect to get an objective view, now can you?

    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Q.When did Obama say it was a terrorist attack?
      A. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/ … eck-terror

      Q When did Issa say he did not gain any new information from his latest investigation?

      A. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/ … -benghazi/

    2. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Q.When did Obama say it was a terrorist attack?
        A. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/ … eck-terror
        Fact, he did not say what Happened in Benghazi was an act of terror.

        Issa didn't learn anything new? Maybe, but I did, you did, we all did.

      2. 0
        SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ""Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

        The REAL quote:
        At the beginning, talking about Benghazi:

        "...we will work with the Libyan Government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, we have been a nation that respects all faiths, we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others"...hmmm....

        Later, referencing 9/11/2001 and that it was already a solemn day for our nation:
        then add your quote. notice the use of the word "more" Americans...because he was referencing 9/11/2001.

        Sure, one can make the argument because it is subjective that he was referring to Benghazi when speaking of "acts of terror" however, when speaking of the Benghazi attack in the beginning, he spoke about "denigrating the religious beliefs of others" and later, after speaking on 9/11/2001 and its anniversary, he referenced "acts of terror".

        http://youtu.be/Z0wllKURCq8

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Your first paragraph: wrong. The whistleblowers provided testimony that, if verified true(and there are documents to verify this, just depends if the State department will play ball or if the House has to force them, and then it depends if Obama pulls his executive privilege again) would prove

        1 - Hillary lied to Congress
        2 - Hillary lied to everybody
        3 - Hillary is guilty of dereliction of duty

        Rep. Issa has to be careful about what he says. Testimony is good information, but it can't be used as concrete proof in an investigation. Now we know which departments we have to subpoena for documents that will(if they exist) prove the testimonies of the whistleblowers. You're taking his statements way too far.

        "I shall leave it to you to use your top and string to spin this any way you want. " Oh yeah, thanks for being the objective voice of reason here... o.O

        I've posted plenty about this last hearing, but if you really want to know, read the transcript... don't rely on news because news sucks(yes, even FOX, and especially Washington Post Opinion pages).

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Read what I wrote again Quill. According to the testimonies presented, those three things are true. If the testimonies are proven true, those three things will have been proven true.

            If you murder someone, you're guilty of it the moment you do it. It might take the courts time to legally find you guilty, but nothing will change the fact that you are guilty. If those testimonies are true, then Hillary is guilty.

            Honestly, I expect better from you than mis-reading, and worse, misquoting me.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Have you ever been quoted correctly? If only people didn't disagree with you, the world would be a better place.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, it's quite easy to quote someone correctly. Quill re-arranged my quote and left out the preceding statement connected to the bullet points.

                You, on the other hand, completely made quotes up.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Your issues with semantics never cease to amaze me

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Your inability to understand what a quotation mark is and how it is used astounds me.

                    And the difference between 'I think that something should happen, even if it has negative consequences' and 'I will make something happen and it will have negative consequences' is far from being an issue of semantics.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'll just ask this then Quill. Can you tell the difference between the following?



                and



                Can you see how one is presented as facts, and one is presented as conditional?

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, Jaxson, I can tell the difference and you are correct.
                  Now may I go to bed? lol
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No!!!

                    ...

                    wait

                    hold

                    patience

                    Now you may go to bed. So let it be written, so let it be done.

  9. movingout profile image59
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    The loss of life is always sad! Life does go on though and we need to be concentrating on the economy and jobs. Too much time is wasted on political gaming. We have problems that impact many households needing attention that should be addressed first.

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure we can concentrate on more than one thing at a time.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      movingout:  You are absolutely right.  In my opinion, the GOP end game is to try to shame Obama and Hillary in the eyes of the public so the GOP can gain political advantage. Instead, they should be concentrating on jobs and the economy.   However, if they could fulfill two  wishes it would be to impeach Obama and send Hillary to prison...in my opinion!

      1. Superkev profile image86
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I thought Obama was focused "like a laser" on creating jobs and fixing the economy. How's that working out for ya?

        I bet you weren't screaming about jobs and the economy when Obama was shoving Obamacare down our throats. Bet he was just jim-dandy in your eyes then.

        PS- How did that "Recovery Summer" work out? Shovel Ready Jobs? How about the 400,000 jobs "Almost immediately" that Pelosi promised if Obamacare was passed?

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Superkev:  Do you deny that the GOP wants to shame Obama and Hillary for political reasons?

  10. movingout profile image59
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    I don't see all the outcrying about the 1,000 plus killed in overseas sweatshops either! Oh, that's right, many like the "low cost products!" Is it worth the cost of human lives? Lets continue to shop these big box stores offering these low prices (only paying those folks $37.50 a month for their hard work) online and in brick and mortar stores! And so many wonder why we have no manufacturing jobs? Greed! Sure and simple on the part of so many "Wanting Stuff at Low Prices!" Think about it!.

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ?

      1. movingout profile image59
        movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My point is clear! If it's for political gain on one side or the other, it's a big issue. But we have blinders on as to why we are losing jobs, as I stated above for an example. People need to get their priorities straight.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not all manufacturers overseas are sweatshops. Perhaps if we were not paying someone $25 an hour or better to take an air gun and screw one bolt and another person $25 an hour or better to take an air gun and screw the second bolt, we could compete in the world market. Just a thought.

          I think the point was it is totally off topic though.

        2. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "The loss of life is always sad! Life does go on though"

          Your words.

  11. movingout profile image59
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    Perhaps the outcry should be for taking care of business at home, and not overseas. Bring our troops home. Penalize these companies eliminating our jobs for the sake of profit! Quit being the big brother all over the world! We have enough problems of our own and our efforts overseas seem fruitless!

  12. 60
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    You can follow the confusing steps the administration took to get from the video to the actual premeditated terrorist attack here.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this
      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm very aware of it.

  13. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    It was common knowledge that the ambassador was pro-Palestinian and pro-peace.

  14. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    The real cover up here is the Republican Congress.
    How about spending less time investigating the investigations of the investigations
    and more (read: any, just a little) time doing YOUR jobs?

  15. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 3 years ago

    Is there any hard evidence that indicates that Obama told Susan Rice what to write in her talking points?  And don't tell me as the President he is responsible for everybody below him, therefore that makes him guilty>

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … eferences/

      You'll note that objections by Nuland at the State Department on certain elements of the talking points were emailed to the White House, then mysteriously changed, 12 times, until they did not contain any fact. Just fiction.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image88
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but Nuland never said that Hillary or Obama directed her to make those changes.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "The White House has long maintained that the talking points were drafted almost exclusively by the CIA, a claim that gave cover to both President Obama and his potential successor, Clinton. “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in November, adding that the only editing by the White House or the State Department was to change the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility."  The emails prove him wrong. Significant edits to the talking points were discussed at the White House the day before Rice's appearance on five Sunday shows, said the official familiar with Nuland's thinking, who added that she did not attend the meeting."

          http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics … i-20130510

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The two important interactions(and I haven't found the report that contains all the emails) are between the spokesperson for the State department, who specifically wrote about "the concerns of the heads of my department(State department)", and a security advisor to Obama.

      Without seeing the emails, I don't know.

      They do show the State department trying to cover their tracks for not listening to intelligence from the CIA... not that they needed it the State department knew well enough what was going on in Benghazi.

    3. 61
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As chief executive he is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, but you are right, it doesn't make him guilty but it does make him incompetent..

      1. peoplepower73 profile image88
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well by that same reasoning then Reagan wasn't guilty of Iran-Contra, but he was incompetent. Nixon wasn't guilty for Watergate, but that does make him incompetent. Bush wasn't guilty for invading Iraq, but the does make him incompetent.  Because all of these people were responsible for their subordinates actions.

        1. 61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, Congress was responsible for invading Iraq as it was Congressional actions, that Hillary supported, that cleared the way for that invasion.  Was the invasion of Iraq the incompetent act or was it the prosecution of the war?

  16. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    The whole conspiracy that Obama and the CIA had info on the attack on Benghazi yet did nothing in order to further his political clout is pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. You know what would have worked better, if that were the case?

    "Hey world, check this out."
    *arrested terrorists!*
    "That's right, I just had the military bust this attack before it happened. How do you like them apples?"

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is someone making that claim?

      What is being claimed is that he and Clinton LIED about the nature of the attack and who was responsible so he could continue using Bin Laden's death and his claim that he "decimated Al Qeida to his political advantage during his re-election bid.

      What is also being claimed is incompetence and callousness on the part of Clinton in regards to numerous requests for more security and ignoring all the red flags when there had been five previous attacks. Let me change that to gross incompetence.

      1. 61
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It isn't necessary for Obama/Hillary to have foreknowledge of the Benghazi attack.  It was September 11th in a country known for supplying foreign fighters for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  A country known for anti-Western terrorism.  A country recently armed and liberated by various Muslim fundamentalist groups.  There were no precautions taken that would be common place anywhere else in the world - not just a country that posed a significant security threat. 

        It demonstrates a lack of focus on the responsibilities of the President and Secretary of State.  Obama had fund raisers and Hillary just didn't want to take that 3am phone call.  There are armed Marine guards at American facilities in places far safer, like Britain, Barbados and France.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The truth is -- between fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Republican-led House of Representatives sought to cut more than $450 million from President Obama's budget request for embassy security funding. Although the Senate was able to restore some of this critical funding, it was not enough.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barba … 69291.html

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            First off, it wasn't the House. It was the House, the Senate and the President, who signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. It was a clear case of "we're not raising the debt limit without spending cuts" and "we're not cutting spending, we're raising taxes" showdown and the Budget Control Act of 2011 was born.

            Second, could you find any more partisan left leaning garbage than the Huffington Post? lmao Seriously?

            1. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              1.  The Budget Control Act of 2011 triggered the Sequestration in March of 2013.  It had nothing to do with cutting funding for Benghazi:  "If Congress failed to produce a deficit reduction bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress could grant a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling but this would trigger across-the-board cuts "sequestrations", as of January 2, 2013."
              2. The house was the one that voted against additional funding.  Read and view this: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/ … -security/
              3.  Why is it you can post right wing pablum and it has credibility, but if I post left wing information, it has no credibility?  Did you even read the link?  It was by Senator Boxer...oh that's right, she has no credibility!
              4.  You post things as fact when they are just your interpretation and they become fact in your mind..  This post being a case in point.
              5. LMAOROTF Seriously!

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Are you blaming cuts in spending for this year, for the lack of security in Benghazi last year?

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this
                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, that is different than the last link you posted.

                    The administration never listed Benghazi as a location slated for improvements anyway, so the point is moot(even in their requests). Clinton wanted it to be a permanent post, but since it didn't meet standards, they listed it as a temporary post. If they didn't have the safety, they shouldn't have stationed the ambassador there.

                    Just wait until(if it ever happens) the real reasons why Stevens was there in the first place actually come to (full)light.

              2. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why is it you can post right wing pablum and it has credibility, but if I post left wing information, it has no credibility?  Did you even read the link?

                Because I don't. I go out of my way not to use biased sources. If I do use a biased source, I provide another source as well.

                You post things as fact when they are just your interpretation and they become fact in your mind..  This post being a case in point.

                No you leave out information if it is detrimental to your argument and twist information. The vote you are speaking of took place in 2009, you know, when the Democrats held control of both Chambers of Congress. Sure, some members of the GOP voted for the cuts, I've not seen anyone deny that, but it was the Democratic controlled Congress that proposed them and holding the majority could have defeated the amendment.

                "Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations....."

                http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ … oblem?lite

                Congressional make-up by party in 2009:

                111th     2009–2011     Senate: Democrats 57     Republicans 41    
                      House Democrats   256     Republicans 178

                http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, that is the vote you are speaking of.  In your previous post, you said this:

                  "First off, it wasn't the House. It was the House, the Senate and the President, who signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. It was a clear case of "we're not raising the debt limit without spending cuts" and "we're not cutting spending, we're raising taxes" showdown and the Budget Control Act of 2011 was born."

                  It wasn't that act.  The debt ceiling was raised, but the sequester did not go into effect until 2013.

                  I'm talking about this that happened in 2011, not 2009: source wikipedia: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/25023 … s-scrutiny

                  And you say I twist things.  You put words in my mouth to tell me what I'm talking about. I don't care about the congressional party make-up in 2009.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You spoke about vague cuts. I read your link and followed links it provided, where it spoke about :
                    1. Budget Control Act of 2011
                    2. The 2009 amendment vote

                    However, let's be clear. We're talking about approximately $450 million in a billion dollar allotment. So perhaps, and it's just a thought, but perhaps if you're the Secretary of State, you make security cuts in countries like, I don't know, Germany, France or Britain. But no, Clinton decided cutting security in Libya was a good idea. On 9/11. With five previous attacks in the months prior. Uh huh.

          2. 61
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So your funds are meager, where do you cut security staff - Barbados, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan or other places where the government is competent, pro-American and the nation peaceful, or do you cut security in LIBYA?  They cut security in LIBYA - what further evidence is necessary of their raging incompetence.

            What a sad and silly attempt to blame Republicans for Obama/Hillary's glaring negligence.

            1. 83
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              +1

              By the way, the funds aren't meager.

            2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Last I checked, neither had control over the final budget

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The final budget doesn't matter - it is LIBYA - that is the easy call.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You must have missed my earlier post. The host country pays for security.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    IIRC, 100% of internal security(inside the gates) is up to us. The host country is in charge of security outside the gate.

  17. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 3 years ago

    I'm sorry, I meant it happened in 2012, not 2011.

  18. 61
    davidseo12posted 3 years ago

    but because of that I can change them right
    http://www.superstrands.com/

  19. Tony Bencivenga profile image60
    Tony Bencivengaposted 3 years ago

    Benghazi was a blunder by our Commander and Thief and now he got about 5 cover ups going now and wonder how many more he has that will surface soon. I respond to your question in this manner, If the GOP lies to you it goes no where, when the OBAma-Lier-exterme does it he got an Administration behind him with the power to full fill it. Again Everyone knows he lies just what is the level of lies you want to see happen

  20. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago
    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sooner28: Thank you for the article.  it definitely puts everything in perspective for me.  Apparently some of those who are replying after your post didn't read the article.  Or they simply don't care.

      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I read it and dismissed it because it doesn't have anything to do with anything.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, you are right it has nothing to do with anything, except our national security, based on how the rest of the world views our political divisions!

          Like I said, you simply don't care.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, that would be you that doesn't care. Do I need to find your exact quote? What does the rest of the worlds view matter? How will the rest of the worlds view keep our diplomats safe?

            1. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, the article shows that when the rest of the world see's this country as bickering and divided, they see us as weak and when we are weak our embassy's become more vulnerable to attack. Because they are a symbol of our country.  Right now, we are viewed as a very weak country, because of all these senseless political attacks!

              1. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                New tactic huh? You are all over the place with why this happened, it happened because it was 9/11 and some elements of al qaeda decided to celebrate the date with an attack on an unsecured embassy! The fact that calls for more security fell on deaf and unconcerned ears at top levels of the State Department and a complete lack of understanding of our enemy culminated in the death of four Americans.

                Your answer to that was "So what"!

                Then when the news broke Obama and his administration colluded with the State Department to minimize the damage to his reelection bid by lying and saying it was Americas freedom of speech that was to blame.
                Answer from the White House "we didn't know anything about security requests."

                Now we find out the IRS is investigating conservative groups and holding up approval of their tax free status to again minimize what potential effect they may have had on Obama's reelection.
                Answer from the White House "we didn't know anything about that."

                Then there is the Justice Departments collection of Phone records from journalists from the AP.
                Answer from Eric Holder "I don't know anything about it."   

                This administration is corrupt, this administration lies, this administration is the most incompetent that I have ever seen!

                1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Clearly you've never heard of a man named Herbert Hoover, who ordered the military to open fire on a group of WWI veterans who petitioned the White House for help during the Great Depression.

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't "see" the Hoover administration.

                2. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm tired of you using the so what.  I explained to you. If you don't understand it, then it's your problem not mine.  As far as me being all over the place, I was just describing what the article said, that you so willing ignored because you felt it no relevance. 

                  Everybody has an opinion right now of how this happened and what is going to happen or what they wish will happen.  But no one at this level really knows.  The only way we are going to know is to let it unfold.  That's a reality.

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're tired of it, then maybe you shouldn't have used such a callous statement in regards to 4 dead Americans. Yes sir, you are all over the place, its been explained why this terrorist attack occurred, you can quit looking for reasons to explain it.

                3. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yea, cuz 501 (C) (4) groups aren't supposed to be affiliated with any political party.

                  The IRS was basically doing its job. Selectively, sure, but technically they were supposed to ask for more information. Regardless of what your feelings are, this had nothing to do with Obama.

                  As for the AP scandal, Holder had to recuse himself. As of right now, no evidence suggests that Obama had anything to do with it. Now Bush on the other hand.....he loved to make journalists give up their rights.

                  I know blaming Obama is easy, but its not even half true.....

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "The IRS was basically doing its job. Selectively, sure, but technically they were supposed to ask for more information. Regardless of what your feelings are, this had nothing to do with Obama."

                    If they were doing what they were supposed to be doing then why was Obama "outraged"?

                    Why did Obama go on national tv to tell us he fired (although he really didn't) the acting head of the agency?

                    The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.

                    It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.

                    And it asked what books people were reading.

                    Treasury Department inspector general report released Tuesday says the agency itself decided some of its questions to conservative groups were way over the line- especially the one about donors.

  21. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago

    You know what's interesting.....

    If Barack Obama had an R next to his name, no one would be placing the blame on Obama or Clinton. There would be no controversy or yelling and screaming about how he "lied" or how it was his fault or how the entire administration is corrupt.

    Instead, people would be focused on BLAMING THE TERRORISTS for the terror attack and bringing them to justice. Heck, it might even be used as a pretense to start an unprovoked war.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You know what's interesting?

      Everybody pits themselves on a 'side'. Then they treat everyone on their 'side' like they are perfect, and everyone else on the other 'side' are all painted with the same brush.

      You know what's interesting about the left? They're all hypocrites, and they would be just as outraged if this happened under Romney.

      You know what's interesting about the right? They're all hypocrites and they are only outraged because this happened under a black president.

      The truth is, people need to PUT DOWN THEIR BIG BRUSHES!

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "You know what's interesting about the right? They're all hypocrites and they are only outraged because this happened under a black president."

        Yea, I thought conservatives weren't racist and that was just a media creation?

        "You know what's interesting about the left? They're all hypocrites, and they would be just as outraged if this happened under Romney."

        And other than the 9/11 commission, there wasn't nearly the level of scrutiny surrounding the events of 9/11 , despite there being a conservative president, as there are about Benghazi.

      2. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who is using a large brush? You just called people on the right racist while complaining that we shouldn't use big brushes. You seem to be pretty rational so maybe I am not understanding your meaning.

      3. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7198708_f248.jpg

    2. 83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Bush is and was blamed for just about everything.  It's comical how often he is/was blamed for so much; he rightfully deserved some blame and was used as a scapegoat for other events.  Now, you want to say that he wouldn't have been blamed?  So, you're saying democrats didn't and don't blame Bush for things?  Both sides play the blame game.

    3. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not really, I would be screaming and I have no doubt you would be too. But, he has a D in front of his name so you remain silent.

    4. Patriot Quest profile image60
      Patriot Questposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Cody what is truly interesting is how your president lied to win an election!  How he allowed Americans to suffer and die because he couldn't afford world drama so close to the polls............the most interesting is how he selfishly covered his own ass and had no love of American lives.............bet Reagan would have handled it differently!

      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And even if he hadn't it would have no bearing on what this president did.

      2. mike102771 profile image83
        mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Reagan would have handled the press better than our current president.

        1. 83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.  I believe most recent presidents would have handled this better, including both republicans and democrats.

  22. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    It's sad that the Obama-defenders, who don't even care about figuring out the truth, can't even understand why we are upset about Benghazi.

    It's not that a consulate was attacked. It's not that Americans died. It's about the irresponsibility, the failure to react properly, the blaming of our FIRST enumerated right, and the coverup.

    Comparing attacks under Bush misses everything. If in the 2008 attack at the embassy in Yemen, if the embassy had been attacked 6 times in 6 months, and requested additional security multiple times(and been denied), and the building wasn't up to security standards, and they had requested improvements to meet those standards(and been denied), and when it was attacked if the attackers had breached the outer defences, and our ambassador had gone missing, and the attack lasted several hours, and response teams had been told to stand down in the middle of the attack, and we didn't scramble any special forces or aircraft, or even request air clearance in case it was needed, and Bush went on TV and blamed an American author for a book he wrote which criticizes Islam, and then the secretary of state lied to Congress, and then everybody in the administration kept trying to wave it off as not a big deal...

    Then I would be outraged about it too.

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Except the Pickering Report absolves Clinton...

      And the fact that the GOP didn't seem to care about previous embassy attacks does matter.

      I realize that you think that somehow this is different, but its not.

      I give it about three more months before this blows up in the face of the GOP.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, ok then. The report ordered by the Department of State, which was supposed to, in part, investigate the Department of State, which didn't interview all the people who were involved, and decided it wasn't necessary to interview Clinton herself, cleared her? Ok then, all is clear!

        I'm sure you would also trust Eric Holder to investigate himself o.O

        1. 83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          After Fast and Furious, I don't know why Holder even has his job.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html
            {2} http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/us/fast-furious-report

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh yeah, the infamous DOJ investigation of the DOJ.

            2. 83
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for the "lesson."  Yes, your post is proof that one should not shoot from the lip.  Arrogance and assumptions are a bad combination.

              Note that my post did NOT say Holder was involved in Fast and Furious.  My disdain for Holder stems from Holder's refusal to turn over documents regarding the Fast and Furious debacle.  Apparently, Congress agreed, because it issued a contempt citation. Yeah, I don't buy Obama's "executive privilege" garbage; it's Nixonian.  You see, I feel that the claim of executive privilege was an attempt to cover up a scandal.  I feel the same happened with Benghazi.  Further, I find it odd that both the POTUS and Holder claim to know nothing and have no ties to significant scandals.  It's an attempt to avoid being drawn into the scandal, or it may well show a lack of knowing what subordinates are doing.  Either way, it shows a lack of leadership.

              If you would like to debate the investigation and its findings, that would be okay too.  That wasn't my point when you assumed it was.

              You might disagree with that opinion, but that doesn't mean I am uninformed.  It means we disagree.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Please 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. lol
                You stay well and have a good night.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. 83
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "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. "

                  How can somebody not have ties to a serious scandal when the scandal occurred under his leadership?  Can anybody continue to call it leadership when scandal after scandal occurs, yet our "leaders" claim to know nothing about what is going on?  Either we have hands-off, inept leadership that quite literally doesn't know what operations are going on, or we have liars who are trying to protect themselves from scandal.  Pick one.  Either one is a serious problem for America.

                  The buck has to stop somewhere, and it just seems to keep stopping with people who aren't in charge.  At what point should the leader step up to the plate and own any of these scandals?  If that doesn't happen, at what point should a leader admit that he should have been better informed and involved in something for which he was supposed to be leading?  If a scandal occurred under my leadership, I'd be fired for either authorizing it or not knowing about it.  Somebody has to be the leader, and responsibility is part of leadership, especially at the executive level.

            3. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Eh, not so fast. By their own admission, that investigation was an internal investigation only. What did you expect? The guy who works for Holder to find Holder responsible?

              The Congressional investigation found things just a little different:

              “Officials in the Justice Department saw any number of warnings and some even had the gunwalking information right in front of them, yet nothing was done to stop it.  Countless people may be murdered with these weapons, yet the Attorney General appears to be letting his employees slide by with little to no accountability.  The Attorney General needs to make changes to ensure that department leadership provides oversight of the agencies they are tasked with supervising,  instead of pointing fingers at somebody else,” Grassley said.

              sources: http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fastandfurious

              It's a quite nice little page. You'll find links to their internal investigation report, both reports from the Oversight Committee plus a chart of key players, the role they played and when they knew what they knew.

              Even better, the links then have links that take you to the documents that were provided.

              I know it's off topic but the amount of misinformation that abounds around here astounds me.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "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}
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/ig-r … d-furious/
                {2} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Quill, you know how politicians try to work together, they like to say things in very nice ways.

                  To think there is no conflict of interest or unresolved issues is lunacy. Holder didn't turn over all the documents relating to the gunwalking programs. He was held in Contempt of Congress. Obama used executive privilege to protect those documents as well. Holder might not even be in government anymore if it weren't up to him to prosecute himself.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    To 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.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  23. tirelesstraveler profile image86
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    You are correct that we know nothing new about Benghazi because nobody knows anything.  Hillary Clinton, though she was Secretary of State, knew nothing and that is her story and she is sticking to it.

    1. 83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't that a problem too though?  She was in charge but knows nothing.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And Bill did not have sex with that woman.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well that all depends upon what the definition of "is" is you know. Sorry but the President's "there is no "therre" there" just  reminded me of Clinton's line.

  24. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Hmm, so far not one person who has been pulling out the 'Consulates were attacked under Bush too!' line has addressed my statements about why that's an irrelevant argument. Any takers?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you will re-post it as a quote or reply to it I might take it for fun tongue

      Edit never mind found it, reply coming up.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your argument there boils down to the deaths in the attack in Libya were due to the administration while the deaths under Bush (not American one's but still innocent human beings) were not.

      Which is false. The attacks on the embassy in Yemen were due to Bush's foreign policy in Yemen and throughout the Middle East, Bush and his policies were responsible for those deaths.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, but thanks for trying to boil down every facet of my post into a single, simplified point.

      2. 0
        SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So I guess when the protesters chanted "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama" it had nothing to do with Obama's policies? Is that what you are trying to claim?

        Let's be clear though:
        1. There was no request for additional security in Yemen that was denied prior to the attack.
        2. There was no lie trying to say it wasn't a terrorist attack afterward.
        3. Security there had recently been beefed up and the terrorists  were unable to get inside the Embassy.

        1. Patriot Quest profile image60
          Patriot Questposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Whoa! hold the phone!  There WERE request for addtional security according to whistle blowers!  As the attack was underway your president left the office at 5pm and recieved nor asked for updates untill the next morning..................too late they were all dead,  while they were beat, bloody and terrified your president was having a nice dinner, drinking beer and dreaming of winning another election,...........stop defending the scum

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No Josak was comparing Benghazi to Yemen trying to claim they were the same thing so how come no one asked questions, was outraged, etc. I was commenting on Yemen.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              LMAO:  Readers don't even know when you are trying to clarify a point!  I kid you Sassy!

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well that is kind of on the reader when it clearly says, and I quote:

                1. There was no request for additional security in Yemen prior to the attack.

                It is also why I usually click the "this" button to see what comment someone is addressing.

                But I've read a comment quickly (before my morning coffee) and misread it. Written out an entire reply and then realized I've misread it. It's a bummer!

  25. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Quill, surely you understand how ridiculous it is for a department that is under investigation to investigate itself and say 'We took care of it'.

    Surely you understand how ridiculous it is for them to justify their actions by saying 'We took care of it, look we'll even give you some of our documents about the scandal. Not all of them, you can't look at all of them, but that's not because it would make us look bad... just trust us, there's nothing important in those documents'.

    Actually Quill, in our legal system, evidence withheld can be used to determine guilt, especially evidence destroyed. If you are a cop and you have a dash cam, then we argue about what was on the dash cam, but you won't present it, the judge will take that as a sign that the evidence would be harmful to you.

    You have to abandon all forms of rationality to come to any conclusion other than the fact that Holder is hiding something. Otherwise, he would have released all the evidence, not just some of it.

    And about the AZ AG, yeah lets trust a man who leaked documents to smear the name of a whistleblower o.O

    1. 83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I might be mistaken, but I believe the leak did not occur from Tom Horne, Arizona's Attorney General.  I believe it was a former US attorney, Dennis Burke.

      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And Burke resigned because of it.

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're right, I had the AG and Attorney for AZ mixed up.

        Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get the same consideration Quill and others are giving to the DoJ?

        The IRS shows up at your door to audit you. You show them a receipt, then tell them that they don't need to see the rest of your receipts. They can just trust you, you're telling the truth...

        ... and then they go away?

        Man, that would be awesome!

        1. 83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, I'd be fired.  If a scandal occurred under me, I'd be fired for authorizing it, not knowing about it, or refusing to tell anybody about who authorized it.  I'd be fired.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      .
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. 83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There's lots of evidence that Holder is either incompetently unaware of what is going on under him or that he is covering for somebody though.

      2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "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."

        Pretty much sums up the thoughts of most Democrats and anyone else with common sense...

  26. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Quill... the documents exist... I don't know how you can keep claiming there is no more evidence!

    Holder won't turn them over, and Obama won't either. This isn't imaginary.

    Whatever, I'm done. Our nation is going to die because Americans don't care.

  27. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Darrell Issa should be in prison:

    Newser) – Darrell Issa is eager to investigate the Obama administration, but he's got plenty of skeletons in his own closet. In a lengthy profile, the New Yorker dredges up a series of scandalous allegations from the House Oversight Chairman's criminal past. Among them: Issa has been accused of burning down a building and arrested for carrying a concealed weapon (he paid a fine, got 6 months probation) and stealing a red Maserati (case dismissed).

    http://www.newser.com/story/109882/darr … light.html

    http://whohijackedourcountry.blogspot.c … ecord.html

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obama has been accused of being a Kenyan. And he did drugs. He should be in prison.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/19/542985 … sight.html

      Here's a fabulous cartoon about taking the mote out of your own eye...

      Issa is definiely in the finals for hypocrite of the year.
      But there's stiff competition. And still 7 months left in 2013, too!

  28. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    http://25.media.tumblr.com/b4e5e3f9ea5d2a046c208cdaea2a13bb/tumblr_mmwwc7YWGu1rf1tr1o1_500.jpg

    http://itmakessenseblog.com/files/2012/07/obama-sgt-schultz.jpg#sgt%20schultz%20450x440

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbQMyAGX4n4IEzjgML0QHv9RZTv5WYTSykvTkksq4owZF5svkZ0A

    http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/945360_588267844539808_1719980461_n.png

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8020898_f248.jpg
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8020901.jpg
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8020903.jpg
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. 83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Back to Bush?  What does Bush have to do with scandals that happened under Obama?  You saw pictures of Obama, so you had to respond with pictures of Bush?  The pictures of Obama were satire directed at the topic, Obama's handling of the scandals.  What do the Bush pictures have to do with this topic?

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It doesn't matter really because in light of Benghazi's links to Al Queda I think, this:

          "President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.".....

          ...trumps "Mission Accomplished" by a mile.

          Further, would you want a guy who flies out to an aircraft carrier to deliver a speech or a guy who needs someone to hold an umbrella over his head during a speech leading our troops?

          1. 83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good point.

          2. peoplepower73 profile image88
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It''s not a matter of an umbrella or a flight to an aircraft carrier.  It's a matter of the consequences of those actions.  Bush, people are still dying in Iraq after mission accomplished. Al Queda wasn't in Iraq until after mission accomplished  Obama, umbrella over his head, Osama Bin Laden taken out.  Whether you believe Al Queda has been decimated or not by comparing it to Benghazi where four people died is not a comparison of Al  Queda still being in huge power!

      2. peoplepower73 profile image88
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Reality Bytes:  A pictures is worth a thousand words and your pictures are disgusting.  If it wasn't for the first amendment, you would be tried for treason in some countries!

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh well, this isn't one of those third world countries that democrats love to support.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Any third world countries in specific or just the usual empty white noise?

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Many come to mind take your pick.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Pick of the absolutely none you managed to list? big_smile tongue

          2. peoplepower73 profile image88
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Lie Detector:  You are so full of sh*t I can't believe it. Do you thinks showing Obama as a NAZI and having a marine chew his ass out, and comparing him with the queen is appropriate for this forum?  In my opinion, it has degraded the forum down to the mud that now you and he are playing in with that last statement.

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You are a very unhappy person.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You mean I should be happy about those pictures and what you said about democrats?

                1. 60
                  Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think you should take those things personal, I don't think you should be abusive.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                    peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't take them personally.  They are lies to this country and its moral fabric. I'm no more abusive than you are. What is more abusive showing Obama as a NAZI, having a marine say he is going to kick start his skull, or showing him as the queen?  You pick the one you want.  You called me unhappy.  I think you are unhappy because Obama is president and this is how you cope!

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There was a much worse example displayed by a vendor at the recent NRA convention. It was a bleeding zombie gun target resembling President Obama. I was going to post it but it was so disgusting I decided not to. The bleeding Obama gun target was displayed for several days until, finally, NRA asked the vendor to take it down.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah because there certainly wasn't any such pictures (and worse) involving Bush when he was President. None at all. smh

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree. There were plenty disgusting pictures of Bush. Free speech and celebrity come with a price. That doesn't make either one right.

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think reasonable people can look at them and say...eh.

                  2. Reality Bytes profile image93
                    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Just to be fair since there really is no difference between the two.

                    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTo4WilHmreg060A7mu9ZapvCfHSt4uenm4fwP6t1MFmDDIltxiKw

                    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPCywCiuj6uZltaAbVY8vC8zYh0LlILLT8VgZCqOvpgbo4HfHK

                    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQZjy38hKaY8GJQhrXR42lOr9QDHqHOeq8oVw9jdLVckE6lvFkTg

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You mean in Saudi Arabia?

        3. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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

          https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZsnaAP0qIRtjV69i92_jw2nU2GNGrXWAuj_yIk_sKIdwGesDf

          https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVh6r_fIFloBJvwQkNbyrR5k46y0bI0BlLUYZzztBrsdp4-SczKA

          https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQq2fhCcAS6gxrqCkiTM6GXp0DrXDv8QSVmMzdQWLIIEGMXb8lOag

          Done, now you can sick the IRS on me!

          lol

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Pretty childish.

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not as much as calling people looney and asking if they run around the woods in camo simply because they disagree with you.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Many people who disagree with me don't run around in the woods in camo outfits. The comment referred only to those whom I suspect are victims of the Tea Party Syndrome. (See my Hub titled "Tea Party Syndrome. Do you have it?" and judge for yourself whether you have it. }

                1. 60
                  Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Better yet why don't you answer my question as to why the second amendment exists?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a good question. Other countries that have sensible gun regulations, such as  Canada, aren't saddled with anything like our 2nd Amendment and a bunch of mouthbreathing gun nuts who fantasize about protecting themselves against a tyrannical government, not realizing that the enemy is greedy billionaires like the Koch brothers, NY bankers, pharmaceutical companies who bribe our doctors to sell their medicines, coal and oil companies who pollute our environment, et al. .

            2. Reality Bytes profile image93
              Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As is my right!

              https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrKYXOTgeNWKaQuCjdRk_545oCyfvJ8HlSz2ccuLncv68Az1sV

              lol

  29. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    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!
    lol

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      After reading the full artical I have come to the conclusion that they are waiting to get more evidence so they can be tried in a civilian court.

      Which is what the first story said in less words.

  30. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    The GOP is barking up the wrong tree on Benghazi. The CIA, if anyone deserves criticism, not the State Department or White House:

    Editorial
    The C.I.A.’s Part in Benghazi
    By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
    Published: May 22, 2013 25 Comments

        Throughout months of Republican “investigation” into the tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 last year, the Central Intelligence Agency has escaped the scrutiny and partisan bashing aimed at the State Department and the White House. But we now know that the C.I.A., and not the State Department or the White House, originated the talking points that Republicans (wrongly) insisted were proof of a scandal. It was more central to the American presence in Benghazi than the State Department, and more responsible for security there.
       
    The C.I.A.’s role needs to be examined to understand what happened and how to better protect Americans.

    Republicans have mostly fixated on the talking points that were the basis of comments made by Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, on television the Sunday after Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. She said the siege seemed to have been a spontaneous protest hijacked by extremists, not a planned terrorist attack. Within days, Republicans in Congress were calling for her head. They later claimed the C.I.A. wanted to tell the truth but Ms. Rice and the administration cared only about protecting President Obama.

    Under pressure, the White House has since released e-mails describing the interagency machinations behind the talking points, which David Petraeus, then the C.I.A. director, initiated at the request of Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. As Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson reported in The Washington Post on Wednesday, the e-mails show that Mr. Petraeus was critical to producing talking points “favorable to his image and his agency.”

    It was the C.I.A. that wrote in the first and subsequent drafts that the attacks were “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault” on the American mission in Benghazi and a separate annex, operated by the C.I.A.

    Early drafts said Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated and that the news media had suggested a link to the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia. In an apparent attempt to avoid blame for not heeding warnings, the C.I.A. said it produced “numerous pieces on extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya.”

    Other e-mails show that it was the F.B.I., which led the inquiry, and the C.I.A.’s general counsel and deputy director who wanted references to Ansar al-Sharia deleted to avoid compromising the investigation. Another intelligence official wrote that there was no “actionable intelligence” that foretold an attack of the kind that occurred.

    Republicans faulted the State Department for objecting to the C.I.A.’s initial draft. But the department seemed concerned mostly that the C.I.A. would say more to lawmakers than what could be shared with reporters or that the C.I.A. was trying to suggest that warnings about the attack had been ignored.

    To a degree, the wrangling occurred because the C.I.A. annex was a classified operation. In fact, the C.I.A. was the main American presence on the ground in Benghazi, had relationships with local groups and was supposed to have the best fix on what was going on. There are serious questions as to why the agency did not have a better handle on security and didn’t do a better job of vetting the local militia that was hired for protection.

    The State Department did a full a public review of its behavior and accepted the conclusion that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” in two bureaus created “a security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” Reforms are under way. Congress needs to look closely at the C.I.A.’s role and insist that the agency do the same.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opini … p&_r=0

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The CIA certainly has to answer for their part in the entire mess in Benghazi. On that we agree, however, after pouring through all those emails (no fun believe me) strictly on the say so of the State Department and the DOJ the talking points went from four bullet points of great length down to three sentences. All references to any link to any terrorist attack at all were cut by the State Department and DOJ. Any reference to any previous warnings or knowledge of social media calls for jihadist attacks were removed.  I find it disturbing that at one point someone says that members of Congress need to be "corrected" because they are under the impression from intel that it was a pre-planned attack and are spreading "false information". Perhaps they should have looked more closely at how that determination was being arrived at.
      Bottom line is this: be it the CIA, IRS, DOJ, State Department.....is there any leadership in this Administration at all? The resounding response at everything that comes up: "I didn't know. The President didn't know. Clinton didn't know. Holder didn't know. " Does anyone have any clue about anything? These are the people who are supposedly leading our nation in all these different agencies, yet they have no idea what is happening within their own agency or department. Very very troublesome.

      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The president has shown a pattern of not knowing anything.

  31. 60
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    After watching the presidents speech on terrorism its clear that after 4 years in charge he still doesn't understand the terrorists. Its not that we want to be at war with them its that they want to be at war with us. What are we supposed to do just let them attack us and say don't do that?

    After this guy as president I don't care who becomes president just as long as they are competent.

 
working