Why are right wingers obsessed with Benghazi???

What's the coverup??

What did Hillary lie about???

What's the scandal???

There was an attack on an American consulate in Benghazi. A U.S. diplomat and a staffer died. Check. Check.

UN diplomat Susan Rice was provided talking points given to her by the CIA, edited by the WH and the State Department (although the 'facts' in those talking points didn't change), and said on TV that islamic protests outside the consulate sparked the attack.

Wrong.

Her 'error' was corrected within FIVE DAYS. Not six months. Not a year.

The facts of the attack did not change. Why is the origin of the attack and how it was initially reported so important to conservatives???

IMO the WH and the State Department tried to downplay the severity of the attack, which IMO this is what the Feds do and have done all the time when U.S. assets are attacked abroad.

Since when is initially underselling the severity of an attack a crime or unforgivable offense??

Or are conservatives that threatened by the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency???:party:

I think your final point hit the nail on the head Giovanni. They see Benghazi as a chink through which the Democrats can be attacked.

The foreign policy of the Obama Administration in the last 5 long, long years, has been an utter failure. Just take a look at the M.E. The US should be fully supporting the revolution in Syria against the butcher dictator Assad - instead of sitting on the side like a spineless fool.

Why? Not because Assad is a butcher Dicktator we should eliminate him, but because it is in the national interest of the US.

Take a look at today's map. The Khomeinists in Iran control a large swath of land spanning all the way from Iran to the Mediterranean coast (Iraq to Syria to Lebanon). By killing Assad, we can put an and to the Khomeinists influence in Syria . Soon after, Lebanon will be freed. Lastly, we should support the Sunnis in Iraq against the Shiia regime which is in bed with Iran.

Iran will be surrended and the Regime will fall. Too bad our media (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NY TIMES, etc,) is controlled by liberals who only want to inform the public about the latest news of the Kardashians and how great Michelle Obama looks.

Re: Benghazi: since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, opponents of government have leaped onto certain events to claim the truth is being covered up, hence the who knew what when questions -whether it is Reagan and Oliver North, Clinton and Lewinsky, Bush and Iraq, and so on. The aim is to weaken and undermine the government.

The other question is: What are the national interests of the USA in the Middle East? Is there one interest, more than one? And if it was forced to, what would the USA choose now if it was a choice between Israel and Oil?

If Bashar al-Asad died of a heart attack tonight or is murdered, what difference does it make? The Army is in power in Syria, and it hasn't been defeated, even if it has lost control of border areas, sections of entire cities and regions.

There is some debate among historians and political pundits about the curious unfolding of events almost 100 years after the French and the British divided the Arab lands of the defeated Ottoman Empire into separate states. Iraq is in a state of virtual 'civil war' with he central government fighting on two fronts: the Sunna minority in the central part of the country, and the Kurds in the North. Iran faces possibly stormy election this summer not least now that Rafsanjani may be on the Ballot -a clear riposte to the leadership of Khamane'i; Syria is convulsed without any sense of an ending; Lebanese politics could change if the Shi'a lose their financial and military goodies from Iran, but how much would it change?

From where I am sitting, other than exercising as much influence on the diplomatic front as it can to try and stop the fighting and commit to a transitional government in Syria, the USA should not otherwise get involved -the USA has a dismal record of direct intervention in Lebanon and Iraq, I don't see Obama making the same mistakes of previous -and mostly Republican- Presidencies of the past going back at least to 1958.

This is really a long game mentality for the GOP. Hilary Clinton has a devoted base of supporters and is really the first viable female candidate for president that would get a majority vote from the general public.

This is something that happened under her watch, and could potentially be used against her in 2016. Notice how Rand Paul has already started the theme of 'she should never hold public office again.' This is a small bit of irony, considering he's considering a presidential run.

The real hypocrisy for the GOP is that while there have been numerous hearings about the Benghazi attack, the same group of Senators and Congressmen/women did everything they could to hold up intelligence hearings about Iraq. John McCain has been the most turned faced about this whole endeavor.

But this is political theater, and the facts are rarely ever the true objective. The most ardent base of the GOP (the ones who think that FEMA is hoarding all the bullets, and Obama was born in Kenya) are the ones who donate the most, who vote the most in primaries, and right now its them that are banging down the door of the congressional office demanding 'answers.'

The problem is, that the answers aren't satisfying enough for them. Now we have a 'whistle blower' who sounds more salty after a demotion than anything, so the 24 hour news media has a new focal point in which to spend countless hours over analyzing .

The obsession isn't with Benghazi. It's with Obama. There's a concerted effort to deny & block everything he does, from appropriations, to policy, to appointments, etc... In this case, it worked. Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration to be appointed Secretary of State, & that manipulation put a Senate seat up for grabs. The scandal is that the scandal mongers can't find a scandal. There's no dirt, & that deepens the obsession. So now they're just glomming onto anything that seems to have ever worked even a little bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

The obsession isn't with Benghazi. It's with Obama. There's a concerted effort to deny & block everything he does, from appropriations, to policy, to appointments, etc... In this case, it worked. Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration to be appointed Secretary of State, & that manipulation put a Senate seat up for grabs. The scandal is that the scandal mongers can't find a scandal. There's no dirt, & that deepens the obsession. So now they're just glomming onto anything that seems to have ever worked even a little bit.

---

They really have become the party of obstruction at all cost since 1993. There are few rational answers for much of what they do, except obstruction. They are what John Adams feared, party before country.

The obsession is because of the the cover up...which is blatantly obvious. This in turn falls in line with the same government/partisan hypocrisy that each side has been arguing against, but still upholding, since democracy (or a republic) was implemented.

The same arguments were there when Bush was in office, and clinton, and bush, and reagan, and carter...etc.

The only thing that will stop it is term limits for all branches of government.

Just read some history. It's quite nauseating.

What cover up??? If it comes out of McCain's mouth on a Sunday morning talk show, it's not evidence of anything except his own hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porscheman372

The only thing that will stop it is term limits for all branches of government.

---

Term limits take away options from the voters, thereby defeating the democratic process. The entire House of Representatives & 1/3 of the Senate are up for grabs every 2 years. The Presidency every 4. It's a built in way to peacefully overthrow "the Government" on a regular basis. So to all the complainers out there, I would ask: What, exactly, are YOU doing to remedy what you think is wrong with the US?

Hillary's got the nomination of her party uncontested while the GOP will spend the better part of 2016 in tiresome primary battles. Her punch drunk opponent will have nothing left for the general election. Republicans will try everything and anything to smear her reputation over the Benghazi affair. Of course they could give a rat's ass about the Ambassador's murder or accomplishing anything productive. It's just another case of them being the GOP (grand old pricks)

A John McCain supporter must've been here. He's brave enough to like or dislike a post but too cowardly to directly address one with which they disagree.

throw in the IRS getting caught harassing right wing groups and you've got a very bad two week stretch for the administration.
but my question for the Republicans would be: Do you guys ever do anything productive or do you just sit around waiting for Obama to fuck up ?

Bad weeks in 2013 probably don't mean much in 2014 and the IRS stuff is probably more fruitful that Benghazi which to all but the hard wired audience of Fox News is old, tired and stinks of partisan complaints.

It is all helpful in destroying the government doing any business OTOH which I starting to believe that since most Tea Party - GOP policies are so unpopular it is a good thing that none of your bat shit crazy ideas ever happen and you prevent your opponent from the chance to demonstrate whether or not their policies would create positive change.

After all there appears to be no political price or ownership for obstructing any and all changes and having some of your members actual go public with the reason was not the policy but rather a concerted effort to not let it appear that the President had a political victory even if it is possible the country would have won a victory.

The GOP has created such a great template for screwing up the other party even if that party has a super majority that the GOP can only hope when their goal of having a super majority happens that the Democrats will ignore this template drawn by the GOP and put the business of the country first.

But after what doing that for Bush-Cheney and having seen it create a global recession, two wars with no end games and corporate corruption at a historic level, will they fall for it again? Or is dysfunction the permanent function of the Federal Government?

By the time the Plutocrats realize they have created a no win situation, IMHO they lose and the American Empire dies from a thousand self inflicted paper cuts.

Abby Martin has a different take on it:

Benghazi: CIA Terrorist Hub | Weapons of Mass Distraction - YouTube

The repubs have pushed the scandals too far, too fast the average voter has an attention span of about 2 weeks. In 2016 they'll be saying "what's a Benghazi?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

What's the coverup??

What did Hillary lie about???

What's the scandal???

There was an attack on an American consulate in Benghazi. A U.S. diplomat and a staffer died. Check. Check.

UN diplomat Susan Rice was provided talking points given to her by the CIA, edited by the WH and the State Department (although the 'facts' in those talking points didn't change), and said on TV that islamic protests outside the consulate sparked the attack.

Wrong.

Her 'error' was corrected within FIVE DAYS. Not six months. Not a year.

The facts of the attack did not change. Why is the origin of the attack and how it was initially reported so important to conservatives???

IMO the WH and the State Department tried to downplay the severity of the attack, which IMO this is what the Feds do and have done all the time when U.S. assets are attacked abroad.

Since when is initially underselling the severity of an attack a crime or unforgivable offense??

Or are conservatives that threatened by the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency???:party:

---

Yea...I'm back for a guest appearence because the ignorance is simply too jaded and too rampant to find humorous any longer. The Facts of the attack ??? that's humorous..what facts? The facts according to Ms. Rice? To Obama at the UN who was still referencing that dumb video 2 weeks later? Tell me about the facts..I'd like to hear it. Exactly who corrected the "error" as you state. Ms. Rice has not been heard from since her comedy of errors on that Sunday. The only facts I've heard were under testimony by Mr. Hicks..otherwise nobody seems to recall anything or don't think any of it really matters.

So you ask about Benghazi...Answer these questions and you can in one posting resolve all the remaining issues for us "right wingers".

Gregory Hicks the man in charge on the ground in Libya after Ambassador Stevens was murdered stated under oath his jaw dropped on hearing the misinformation put forth by Susan Rice because he informed Sec. Clinton the night of the attack there were terrorist elements involved . In addition there was a drone overhead providing real time date that provided clearly the size, coordination and ferocity of the attack. Unless you can provide some link between the Koch brothers and Mr. Hicks, one has to assume his testimony under oath had validity. One does not get on all 5 Sunday shows unless one asks to be on 5 shows, presumably to present an important message or critical information. Additionally on her CBS appearance she directly conflicted the Libya Prime Minister mere moments after he informed Bob Schiffer it was a terrorist attack. This conflict is why weeks after the attack CNN reporters were still wandering around the battle scene finding evidence and classified documents instead of the FBI. The Libyans were so angry at The State Department, they refused to allow the FBI entrance. Again sworn testimony...not right wing talking points. Additionally on 4 of the 5 shows Ms. Rice not only told us about the bogus video protests, she parroted the administrations talking points about al Queda being on the run so clearly her appearance was choreographed to meet the needs of the politics at hand.. And why Ms. Rice? She was the least knowledgeable on the events of that night as anyone in the State Department...Answer...to provide cover for Mrs Clinton. Had Ms. Rice explained about the fog and confusion of war in such an attack,or the unfolding of events still being evaluated, you might have a case, but she repeated the misinformation empathically 5 different times when it was clear they knew the night of the attack Ansar al Sharia was involved. She tried to spin a tale conflating the events in Egypt and Benghazi, and it blew up in her face.

From Wikipedia..

"Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault. Some had their faces covered and wore Flak jacket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), Hand grenade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, AK-47 and FN F2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks."

Needless to say, these were not protestors upset over a goofy video. .


So the first question you need to answer is why did Ms. Rice deliver the message, and why did she intentionally mislead ? She may not have known the talking points were a pile of lies, but somebody did. Was she just a stooge?

The next question you need to answer is who gave the order to stand down and why? Was it Obama Panetta Clinton or Paterus that sat on their hands while Woods and Dogherty valiantly defended US territory on the roof of the annex manning MK 46 Machine guns only to be killed by motar fire 8 hours after the call for help went out ?

Let me put it this way....had you GH been in a position of authority and given all the unrest in Libya,and the fact there were no other diplomatic missions left in Benghazi because of the terror threat, and the intelligence that was readily available and the significance of the calendar...might you have ordered at least one rapid response team ready somewhere in the Middle East in case this sort of thing developed? Yet Panetta testified the only units able to respond were in Italy and central Europe and not on stand by and arrived well after the 8 hour battle ended. Is that incompetence or ineptness?

The next question I need answered is how is the promised investigation going? Do we have any suspects? Are we hot on the trail? Or are we still searching for the killers like OJ is?

Look...several things have become quite clear...there was something going on at the annex...I submit we were arming the rebels and this info needed to be kept quiet. Couple that with the oft repeated campaign line about the terrorists on the run and the need to keep that narrative clean so close to an election, and it's not hard even for left wingers to figure this out. Barry gave the order not to intervene militarily and instead of assembling his team in the war room similar to all those pictures we were privy to during the Bin Laden raid , he simply went to bed. Is that a crime? Is what Susan Rice did a crime? Is the fudging of the talking points meant to downplay the attack a crime? Is the lack of a real military response before, during or after the attack a crime? No to all of the above...but it's a colossal fuck up by a gang that can't seem to shoot straight, and certainly can't seem to keep their stories straight.

It was a gross incident when Pat Tillman's parents were lied to about the cause of his death in battle, and the families of these 4 men deserve to know what happened that night. They fought bravely and died for their country and deserve no less. And a story about a video isn't going to cut it. None of the familes have been spoken to by the State Department other than to promise them the bastards who made this video woud be found and brought to justice. That part ironically is true.

And the final question...When your government misleads you on National Security issues, are you only outraged when the person who does it has an R after his or her name ?

Take a few moments to read the final Accountability Review Boards report...These are the Hillary appointed folks that did this report. It's not right wingers who clearly state there were substantial administrative and security failures laid at Ms. Clinton's desk. And Hillary will get back to us about how she's doing at addressing all these failures just as soon as she can, and as soon as she finds those Rose Law firm billing records.

The king of lies makes his pathetic return. Did they free you from prison again Dr Goebbels?

Which right-wing UNthink tank do you work for Josef?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Yea...I'm back for a guest appearence because the ignorance is simply too jaded and too rampant to find humorous any longer. The Facts of the attack ??? that's humorous..what facts? The facts according to Ms. Rice? To Obama at the UN who was still referencing that dumb video 2 weeks later? Tell me about the facts..I'd like to hear it. Exactly who corrected the "error" as you state. Ms. Rice has not been heard from since her comedy of errors on that Sunday. The only facts I've heard were under testimony by Mr. Hicks..otherwise nobody seems to recall anything or don't think any of it really matters.

So you ask about Benghazi...Answer these questions and you can in one posting resolve all the remaining issues for us "right wingers".

Gregory Hicks the man in charge on the ground in Libya after Ambassador Stevens was murdered stated under oath his jaw dropped on hearing the misinformation put forth by Susan Rice because he informed Sec. Clinton the night of the attack there were terrorist elements involved . In addition there was a drone overhead providing real time date that provided clearly the size, coordination and ferocity of the attack. Unless you can provide some link between the Koch brothers and Mr. Hicks, one has to assume his testimony under oath had validity. One does not get on all 5 Sunday shows unless one asks to be on 5 shows, presumably to present an important message or critical information. Additionally on her CBS appearance she directly conflicted the Libya Prime Minister mere moments after he informed Bob Schiffer it was a terrorist attack. This conflict is why weeks after the attack CNN reporters were still wandering around the battle scene finding evidence and classified documents instead of the FBI. The Libyans were so angry at The State Department, they refused to allow the FBI entrance. Again sworn testimony...not right wing talking points. Additionally on 4 of the 5 shows Ms. Rice not only told us about the bogus video protests, she parroted the administrations talking points about al Queda being on the run so clearly her appearance was choreographed to meet the needs of the politics at hand.. And why Ms. Rice? She was the least knowledgeable on the events of that night as anyone in the State Department...Answer...to provide cover for Mrs Clinton. Had Ms. Rice explained about the fog and confusion of war in such an attack,or the unfolding of events still being evaluated, you might have a case, but she repeated the misinformation empathically 5 different times when it was clear they knew the night of the attack Ansar al Sharia was involved. She tried to spin a tale conflating the events in Egypt and Benghazi, and it blew up in her face.

From Wikipedia..

"Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault. Some had their faces covered and wore Flak jacket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), Hand grenade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, AK-47 and FN F2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks."

Needless to say, these were not protestors upset over a goofy video. .


So the first question you need to answer is why did Ms. Rice deliver the message, and why did she intentionally mislead ? She may not have known the talking points were a pile of lies, but somebody did. Was she just a stooge?

The next question you need to answer is who gave the order to stand down and why? Was it Obama Panetta Clinton or Paterus that sat on their hands while Woods and Dogherty valiantly defended US territory on the roof of the annex manning MK 46 Machine guns only to be killed by motar fire 8 hours after the call for help went out ?

Let me put it this way....had you GH been in a position of authority and given all the unrest in Libya,and the fact there were no other diplomatic missions left in Benghazi because of the terror threat, and the intelligence that was readily available and the significance of the calendar...might you have ordered at least one rapid response team ready somewhere in the Middle East in case this sort of thing developed? Yet Panetta testified the only units able to respond were in Italy and central Europe and not on stand by and arrived well after the 8 hour battle ended. Is that incompetence or ineptness?

The next question I need answered is how is the promised investigation going? Do we have any suspects? Are we hot on the trail? Or are we still searching for the killers like OJ is?

Look...several things have become quite clear...there was something going on at the annex...I submit we were arming the rebels and this info needed to be kept quiet. Couple that with the oft repeated campaign line about the terrorists on the run and the need to keep that narrative clean so close to an election, and it's not hard even for left wingers to figure this out. Barry gave the order not to intervene militarily and instead of assembling his team in the war room similar to all those pictures we were privy to during the Bin Laden raid , he simply went to bed. Is that a crime? Is what Susan Rice did a crime? Is the fudging of the talking points meant to downplay the attack a crime? Is the lack of a real military response before, during or after the attack a crime? No to all of the above...but it's a colossal fuck up by a gang that can't seem to shoot straight, and certainly can't seem to keep their stories straight.

It was a gross incident when Pat Tillman's parents were lied to about the cause of his death in battle, and the families of these 4 men deserve to know what happened that night. They fought bravely and died for their country and deserve no less. And a story about a video isn't going to cut it. None of the familes have been spoken to by the State Department other than to promise them the bastards who made this video woud be found and brought to justice. That part ironically is true.

And the final question...When your government misleads you on National Security issues, are you only outraged when the person who does it has an R after his or her name ?

Take a few moments to read the final Accountability Review Boards report...These are the Hillary appointed folks that did this report. It's not right wingers who clearly state there were substantial administrative and security failures laid at Ms. Clinton's desk. And Hillary will get back to us about how she's doing at addressing all these failures just as soon as she can, and as soon as she finds those Rose Law firm billing records.

---

Misread on a national security issue? What about Iraq? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Why is that Bush gets a free pass on invading a nation, whereas as Obama is raked over the coals as the worst person in history for 4 deaths? It is pure and utter hypocrisy. And that hypocrisy, is solely for the sake of power. What about the Iraq war? It was started under false pretenses. What about the concept of one nation, or even real human compassion? Tens of million people suffering the daily consequences of no health care. Conservatives response to this issue: "fuck them"! Millions of people lose jobs. The Republican response: we will vote to end the unemployment benefits, of a million people (families), two weeks before Christmas, unless the top tax bracket gets to keep their tax cuts. Never mind that the nation was involved in two wars. Why should the richest have to sacrifice,just because some suckers were half way across the world dying for them.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/06/07/...-the-iraq-war/

Why is it that so many people think that 5,000 or less Iraqis died as a result of the war, when the reality is that it was over 100,000? What ever the reason large numbers of people are disconnected from reality. I say they are being fed an unreal view of the world and life. Included in this unreality, is over emphasizing the importance of Benghazi.

One more thing. People who are so upset over Benghazi, seem to be ignorant over the history of human warfare, going back thousands of years. Throughout history, warriors have staged feint attacks, either to distract enemy forces from a main assault elsewhere, on to lure enemy forces into a bigger trap. Professional warriors, such as the US military have been taught to access situation before sending forces, where the local forces has an advantage in knowing the terrain and has shorter supply routes. The fact that that blasphemous movie was causing world wide protest, was good cover, for enemies of the US. The persons who made that movie, should have been prosecuted for giving cover to the enemy. The results of putting out a movie attacking Prophet Muhammad were entirely predictable. It was made deliberately to offend Muslims. Why make it easier for your enemies to kill you? It's not really free speech if it helps people to get killed, is it?

Any person being murdered is a tragedy. But it's also a tragedy that so much ignorance is being taught to our people. Being able to cover the whole world militarily is not as easy as people may think.

Good stuff Yoda.... it is interesting how the liar returns only when he now finds it ncessary to promote a right-wing agenda of smear and innuendo and never offers any intelligent response to the issues of the sort you have raised.

The present mess in the Middle East is very much the legacy of Bush and Blair's illegal invasion of Iraq which wholly disrupted the (albeit queasy) balance of power across the whole region.

..........