The Truth About Attacks On Our Diplomats

[Straight Shooter]

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yes it's happened before. But no administration has ever tried to sweep it under the rug or had so many different stories on as to why it happened as this one.

Which is the whole problem.

 

[xfire]

 

[Mayhem]

^^^ That's what it is. If you had told me that we'll ever elect a Pres that Republicans hate more than Clinton, I would have bet real money against it.....and lost.

 

[xfire]

Republicans and Fox News hoped yesterday's Benghazi hearing would bring down the Obama presidency and permanently derail Hillary Clinton. But there's still no conspiracy; there's still no cover-up; there's still no political scandal.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/09/18145168-with-a-whimper

With a whimper
By Steve Benen
-
Thu May 9, 2013 7:48 AM EDT


One of the key challenges for House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and his congressional Republican colleagues yesterday was expectations. There have already been multiple hearings and reports on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and Americans already know what happened. For those willing to look past silly and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, there really aren't any remaining unanswered questions.



But wait, Issa and his friends said, this hearing will be different. Now we have whistleblowers. This is will be The Day Everything Changes. This was a hearing so significant, so monumental, that Republican staffers on Capitol Hill felt the need to make movie posters to help promote it.

Issa over-promised and under-delivered. The dramatic hearing that Republicans and Fox News hoped to use to bring down the Obama presidency and permanently derail Hillary Clinton's still-unknown ambitions did neither -- there's still no conspiracy; there's still no cover-up; there's still no political scandal.

This is not to say we learned nothing from the hearing. When I read through transcripts and watched the back and forth betweeen lawmakers and witnesses last night, it was clear that Gregory Hicks, the former U.S. diplomat in Libya and Issa's star witness, offered details of the attack itself that were riveting and previously unreported. That said, in terms of the larger story, the details may have been fascinating, but they didn't break new ground. Indeed, conservative allegations that Hicks' perspective had been deliberately suppressed as part of a cover-up is absurd -- he'd already spoken at length to the independent panel that investigated the attack.

So what was the point of yesterday's theatrics, beyond giving far-right activists a morale boost and giving Fox News a ratings boost? What do we know now that we didn't know 24 hours ago? Eight months after the attack itself, I know Republicans think there's been a cover-up, but I haven't the foggiest idea what it is they think has been covered up. For all the talk of a political "scandal," no one seems capable of pointing to anything specific that's scandalous. For all the conspiracy theories, there's no underlying conspiracy to be found.

Marc Ambinder noted last night, "There are plenty of intelligent criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Today's Benghazi debate is the classic example of an unintelligent, fairly easy way out of actually engaging." Kevin Drum added:

Was Benghazi mishandled? Maybe. Are there lessons to be learned? Probably. Is there a scandal or a coverup? There's never been any evidence of it, and there still isn't. This is a show that goes on and on without end, but it never delivers a payoff. Issa and his colleagues need to start paying more attention to stuff that actually matters, and give up on the Fox-friendly conspiracy theories that never pan out. Enough's enough.

But is it? That same paragraph could have been written in December. Or February. Or April. It remains true, of course, but it's proving remarkably difficult to dissuade Republicans from their white whale. Maybe, they think, Benghazi hearing #9 will turn up something hearings #1 through #8 missed. Perhaps a little more digging will turn up some shred of evidence that the president's handling of the attack was politically motivated, even though there's no sane reason that explains a political motivation.

Enough should be enough at this point, but if recent history is any guide, the next pointless hearing is just around the corner.

 

[meesterperfect]

there is already a thread on this. Or is this just a thread to defend Obama, Hillary, Rice and the rest?
I still have to watch more of the testimony from yesterday but it seems that the 3 men who testified were very credible. From what Ive seen its very clear that at least Evil Hillary lied many times in her testimony.

 

[meesterperfect]

they tried, failed big time however

 

[meesterperfect]

Pure Evil. How can anyone back this guy up?

 

[xfire]

Pure Evil. How can anyone back this guy up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmwgRSzb2uc

How is that "pure evil"? Sounded like someone that doesn't have all the facts, hence the part where he repeated, "when we find all the facts". Motherfuckers will see whatever they want to see.

 

[Mayhem]

there is already a thread on this. Or is this just a thread to defend Obama, Hillary, Rice and the rest?
I still have to watch more of the testimony from yesterday but it seems that the 3 men who testified were very credible. From what Ive seen its very clear that at least Evil Hillary lied many times in her testimony.

I watched the whole thing. Yes, they were credible. And no, Hillary wasn't brought up much at all.

I don't like Hillary and I don't want her as President. If she get the nomination and the Repubs line up their usual clown car of candidates I may have to, but I won't want too. But don't think I'm going out of my way to defend her.

Susan Rice got played by her own people, that much is clear. If she's pissed, she deserves to be.

The rest is chalked up to the ridiculous bureaucracy that is the US Government, especially as it pertains to foreign affairs.

 

[xfire]

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/

GOP Star Witnesses Debunk Right-Wing Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

The “whistleblowers” at today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last September were supposed to break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall, in the eyes of conservatives. Instead, these witness actually served to debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi, leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP:

1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi

Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.

Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.

2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi

House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney, that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.

3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down

One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

4. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board isn’t legitimate

Republicans have been attacking the State Department’s official in-house review of the shortcomings seen before, during, and after the assault in Benghazi. That criticism prompted House Republicans to write their own report. When asked point blank about the recommendations of the Board, however, the witnesses didn’t cooperate with the GOP narrative. “Absolutely,” Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya prior to the assault in Benghazi, answered when asked if he believes implementing the recommendations would improve security. “I had an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.” Hicks, when questioned, said that while he had some issues with the process by which the Board gathered its information, he demurred on criticizing the report itself.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Shouldn't you be relishing in Obama's victory and allowing him to get on with the business of continue to improve this bang up economy instead of focusing on something that nothing will ever come of it?

Geez!

 

[lurkingdirk]

J O N Stewart got it exactly right:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-...s-of-bullsht-mountain-have-cried-wolf-before/

Jon Stewart tonight took on today’s big Congressional hearing on Benghazi, and specifically on how it’s become the latest way Fox News has gone all-out in covering a potential Obama administration scandal while wondering where the rest of the media is. But Stewart pointed out that no one else is quite on board because everyone’s basing their outrage on speculation, and, frankly, “the denizens of Bullshit Mountain have cried wolf before.”

Stewart pointed out how Fox News has repeatedly highlighted how each different testimony in the past few months would be the big game-changer on Benghazi, and this one would be no different. He pointed out that there was already an accountability report released, and that the GOP seems to be more outraged about this attack than any attack on Americans abroad during the Bush administration.

Stewart also reminded viewers that pretty much every potential Obama administration scandal has been described as worse than Watergate, with one Republican congressman saying Benghazi is worse than Watergate plus Iran Contra times ten. But Stewart had to point out that the reason no one else is as outraged as Fox is that while they’re “at DefCon ‘this definitely happened,’” no one actually knows what happened, and so everyone’s just speculating. Stewart mocked all the speculation, saying “if dingleberries were diamonds, I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants.”

Stewart said that Fox News has a “history of hysteria,” and they may be proven right when more facts come out, “but the denizens of Bullshit Mountain have cried wolf before.”

 

[Straight Shooter]

There's a difference between a screw up and a conspiracy. I'm still confused as to what exactly the conspiracy is here?

 

[Jeep!]

I'm still confused as to what exactly the conspiracy is here?

'Bama wants us good 'murcans dead so he can take muh freedoms away.

 

[xfire]

I'm sure Bolton kicked himself in the ass in retrospect, and I'm sure Roger Ailes kicked him the nuts at the same time.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/the-john-bolton-acknowledgment-that-should-end/193964

The John Bolton Acknowledgment That Should End The Benghazi Scandal Mongering
Blog ››› May 8, 2013 1:08 PM EDT ››› JEREMY HOLDEN

Fox News contributor John Bolton delivered a devastating blow to the right-wing scandal mongering over Benghazi when he acknowledged that it was impossible to know at the exact moment of the September 2012 terrorist attack whether it was appropriate to shift security resources away from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

A key aspect of the right's conspiracy theory posits that an Obama administration official refused to send reinforcements to the Benghazi diplomatic outpost to defend Americans under sustained attack by terrorists. It's been amply established at this point that a team of reinforcements was dispatched from Tripoli, where the main embassy is located, to Benghazi, some 400 miles away, after the attacks began. That security team arrived after a first attack ended, the attack that ended in the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, but before a second attack began.

Bolton, appearing on the May 8 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, took issue with the decision not to send a second reinforcement team to Benghazi - a central component of hyper-partisan congressional hearings underway this week. Critics of the administration have pointed to that decision as evidence that it abandoned Americans who were under attack. But the additional reinforcements would not have been able to get to the Benghazi compound before the second attack was concluded. Here's Bolton's response:

When the attack began, no one could know when it would end. No one could know what the geographical limitation was. Was it simply an attack in Benghazi? Could terrorists be poised to attack the embassy in Tripoli? Were other posts around the Middle East in jeopardy? So the notion that you're just going to sit and wait for this to work itself out left a lot of other people at risk.

But it's precisely the fact that it was unclear that the embassy in Tripoli was safe that informed the decision over whether to send a second reinforcement team away from the embassy. NBC News reported that Department of Defense officials confirmed that a second unit was denied authorization to leave Tripoli for Benghazi during the night of the attack, in part because the security situation in Libya remained unclear:

U.S. military officials confirmed late Monday that a four-man Special Operations Forces team was denied permission to leave the US Embassy in Tripoli following reports that the consulate in Benghazi had been attacked.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the team was reviewing security at U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and was not prepared for a combat assault mission, being armed with only 9mm sidearms.

They also noted that the situation at Benghazi remained unclear and there were concerns the Embassy in Tripoli also could become a target.

Bolton's seemingly accidental acknowledgement should put an end to the campaign - enabled and encouraged at every step by Fox News - to drum up a scandal of Watergate-sized proportions.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

I wish Congress would convene to decide if its OK to wanna fuck Jodi Arias. I have no idea how the vote would go. Who would more likely filibuster?

 

[ApolloBalboa]

'Bama wants us good 'murcans dead so he can take muh freedoms away.

That's saying quite a lot, seeing as your location is Belfast.

Gregory Hicks's testimony reads like every action movie that takes place overseas. He describes his final conversation with Chris Stevens as such: "Greg, we're under attack." "Okay." Then the line goes dead. He said that family concerns were the "overriding" reason for not returning to Libya, but also admitted that "I would never be comfortable working there." The State Department finds him a replacement job that he claims feels like a demotion, yet he continues to receive the same pay, same benefits, and same rank as before, and he's still under consideration for going on another assignment. Call me crazy, but it doesn't sound like downgrading at all. He says he was criticized harshly by his superiors? Guess what buddy, that's a part of any and every job, so complaining about how your feelings were hurt doesn't make me feel for you.

 

[Jeep!]

That's saying quite a lot, seeing as your location is Belfast.

Yes--I don't even have to be on the ground in the US to see that this is being blown full of hot air due to partisan hatred of the sitting president.

 

[ApolloBalboa]

Yes--I don't even have to be on the ground in the US to see that this is being blown full of hot air due to partisan hatred of the sitting president.

I knew there was a reason I liked you, you present a great amount of logic that even some people who live in the US don't possess. I'm not a huge Obama fan myself, but I can tell that this is nothing more than a witch hunt.