Benghazi hearing?

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

In 2011-13, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb killed thousands of Malians and nearly took over that country if it was not for French intervention. Desperate? No, just a change of direction.

Or are we ignoring the whole Mali thing?

With the help of other groups, against what Wikipedia refers to as a "fledgeling government". While deplorable, it is nowhere near on the same level as breaching US domestic security.

Yes, you are right, building an army to nearly conquer an entire nation is not the same level as 19 men attacking a nation unaware it was a target. They are not on the same level, one is far worse.

[Conserative Morality]

Did you read what you posted?

The first was the text of a bill, not the results.

Second was proposed cuts

and the last was clearly labeled domestic cuts, so throw that out.

I asked for the actual results of a bill cutting security to our foreign services. You have instead opted to provide me with a news article detailing domestic cuts, another talking about Hillary Clintons opinion in proposed cuts, and a third that was merely the text with no results. I don't see what you are getting at here.

During the bleary-eyed final roll call at 4:35 a.m., 235 Republicans were joined by no Democrats in support of dramatic spending reductions that they said were needed to address a soaring annual deficit of $1.6 trillion; 189 Democrats -- as well as three Republicans -- opposed it, accusing Republicans of writing the bill with a "double meat ax.

Tell me, do you even open the links before you start bullshitting? This is all about the same bill. This is the bill House Republicans passed, with no Democratic support. These are the cuts they were pushing for. So tell me, are you a welcher and a liar, or just not particularly good at reading sources?

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, you are right, building an army to nearly conquer an entire nation is not the same level as 19 men attacking a nation unaware it was a target. They are not on the same level, one is far worse.

Ha.

Al-Dine and the Tuaregs dismantling a country's security forces = Al-Qaeda now, eh? It's funny, no matter how minor a part Al-Qaeda plays, some people still pretend like they, and those who ally themselves with Al-Qaeda, are the driving force of everything bad that happens where they're present.

[New Chalcedon]

It is extremely dubious that any of this reached the presidents ear, let alone within the range he could take action, before this had escalated into what it did. Even if it came down to him which I mildly put it doubt, the machine would be more than adequate to cover it up.

It is far more likely however that Hillary would have had some say during this.

Actually, no. The Embassies' security funding was dictated by Republicans in the House, who cut $500m from the Obama Administration's funding request for State Dept. security services. That was what decided how successful the Benghazi attack would be, more than any other factor.

And so far in the hearing it is obvious that they pulled the muslim video out from nowhere to fit some kind of narrative. Though Rice's timeline will have to be established to a more thorough degree as her reaction was what put the initial faleshood shitstorm into play which I very much doubt any of the ingelligence agencies would have forwarded her.

Again, no. The CIA's initial assessment was that it was a spontaneous protest instigated by the video. That changed, of course, as more facts came to light - but it was their initial assessment, and it was what Ambassador Rice took into the talk shows.

But hey, nice try.

Democrats don't want to know because it embarrasses the party, Republicans want to know because it embarrasses the democrats.

No. Just no. Democrats don't want to keep navel-gazing because it won't help going forward, and Republicans want to keep engaging in a three-ring circus on any pretext they can find (as they have been doing since Jan 2011) to bash Obama - and more importantly, Hillary Clinton, whom current polls indicate would absolutely curb-stomp any credible opposition in both the primaries and the general in three years' time for the White House. The last thing that the Republicans want - absolutely the last - is to allow Barack Obama to become the first Democrat since Kennedy to be succeeded by another Democrat, and they're pulling out all the stops to smear and mudsling any potential candidate.

And it's working. The constant drum-beating re: Benghazi has convinced a lot of low-information voters - apparently such as yourself - that where there's smoke, there's fire, and it's driven down the poll numbers of every Democrat associated with the Administration. Nevermind that the only smoke in sight was created by members of one party to smear members of the other.

Some of the democrats have used their speaking time crying out about the horror of a comittee putting members of an administration under scruitiny as if it was anti-american,

That isn't want Democrats are objecting to. Democrats are objecting to people like Darrell Issa turning what should be impartial scrutiny of Administration officials into (to use Issa's own words) "good theater", as they have been doing ever since January 2011.

but the truth in this case deserves to be heard.

And if you think that Congressional Republicans have any interest at all in any truth that doesn't let them wave a bloodied shirt crying, "Democrats are commiefascistmuslims who are in league with the terrorists!", then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Though my bet is that it will all be pinned on some minor players as the other side will not accept cosinsidence as an excuse, and the democrats are far too clever to present any major hopefuls in a negative light.

Or it could be....that Hillary Clinton is actually innocent of a conspiracy to hide some Godawful truth? Nahhhhh.....she's a woman who wants a man's job, so "everyone knows" she's just a scheming, shrill, conniving harpy-whore. Who held the gun that killed Vince Foster, no less - and probably sat on the grassy knoll when she was a sixteen-year-old girl with a sniper rifle, too.

So far no testimony has condemmed anyone,

Nor is it terribly likely to, after all these months of digging. Everyone with even a tangential connection to the incident at Benghazi has already been summoned before the Committee(s) in question (some more than once)....what does Issa hope to achieve by repeating the whole process? That somehow, he'll find some point he can nitpick into a trumped-up charge of perjury? Probably - but somehow I doubt he's going to achieve anything but a colossal, partisan waste of time and money.

and unless there is a whistleblower which I doubt then it will be a long, long hearing that will please neither side.

Which brings me back to my previous point: you are taking it as a given that the Obama Administration is actively hiding something. With what evidence, might I ask? Or is this one of the things you know to be true because Rush Limbaugh tells you it is?

Do bear in mind that the very same Republicans who are investigating every corner of every carpet in the White House are the same ones who let Bush and Cheney spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, instigate a massive cover-up of "sexying-up" intelligence to justify a ruinous war in Iraq and Dick Cheney to claim that the Vice-President isn't part of the Executive branch of government (and hence, not answerable to Congress) without even a semblance of accountability.

For Darrell Issa to claim that he wants to subject an Administration - any Administration - to "accountability" is a sick joke.

[Khadgar]

Nor is it terribly likely to, after all these months of digging. Everyone with even a tangential connection to the incident at Benghazi has already been summoned before the Committee(s) in question (some more than once)....what does Issa hope to achieve by repeating the whole process? That somehow, he'll find some point he can nitpick into a trumped-up charge of perjury? Probably - but somehow I doubt he's going to achieve anything but a colossal, partisan waste of time and money.

Hey it almost worked during the tempest in a teapot that was Whitewater.

[Gauthier]

Do bear in mind that the very same Republicans who are investigating every corner of every carpet in the White House are the same ones who let Bush and Cheney spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, instigate a massive cover-up of "sexying-up" intelligence to justify a ruinous war in Iraq and Dick Cheney to claim that the Vice-President isn't part of the Executive branch of government (and hence, not answerable to Congress) without even a semblance of accountability.

For Darrell Issa to claim that he wants to subject an Administration - any Administration - to "accountability" is a sick joke.

Not really a shocker. This is the same Republicans who let Jar-Jar Binks raise the debt ceiling numerous times without fuss but when the Uppity Negro asked to do the same they made a spectacle of it and killed America's Triple-A credit rating in the process.

IOKIYAR has become more than a slogan, it's a way of life for them.

[Greed and Death]

I thought the Republicans were going to let this die once they got their choice of Secretary of State.

[Fellrike]

I'm surprised there's no thread on this forum for the Benghazi hearings in the US. Why is this? Do the majority of liberals here on NS not consider it a prevalent issue and that there was obviously no cover up? I think so. Just wondering.

Democrats would like to make the whole issue disappear, or at least minimize its impact. Republicans would like to parlay it into cause for impeachment of the President, or at least derail Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects. Neither side will get what it wants. My guess is, someone is going to have to throw himself onto his/her sword, in expiation. Leon Panetta, who has no further political ambitions, might be persuaded to sacrifice himself. Republicans tend to feel more sympathy for government functionaries who wear uniforms than for those in suits, but it's possible that the officer at the Pentagon who gave the order to stand down and leave the Benghazi consulate to its fate because no nonlethal crowd control options were available will be the one to take the fall.
It isn't going to be pretty, but we all know this is how things work in Washington so there'll be no real surprises. This is not to say that both parties don't regret what happened, and wish the dead Americans could be restored to their loved ones, I'm sure they do, but let's face it, everything is political.

[Gauthier]

I thought the Republicans were going to let this die once they got their choice of Secretary of State.

It's about trying to demolish Hillary's Presidential prospectives and if Jesus is in a good mood getting the Uppity Negro impeached or forcing him to resign.

[Wikkiwallana]

This is not to say that both parties don't regret what happened

Actually, I very, very much doubt that the Tea Party leadership regrets what has happened in any way.

[Khadgar]

I'm surprised there's no thread on this forum for the Benghazi hearings in the US. Why is this? Do the majority of liberals here on NS not consider it a prevalent issue and that there was obviously no cover up? I think so. Just wondering.

Democrats would like the issue to go away. Republicans would like to make the issue into a cause for impeachment of the President, or at least derail Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects. Neither side will get what it wants. My guess is, someone is going to have to throw himself onto his/her sword, in expiation. Leon Panetta, who has no further political ambitions, might be persuaded to sacrifice himself. Republicans tend to feel more sympathy for government functionaries who wear uniforms than for those in suits, but it's possible that the officer at the Pentagon who gave the order to stand down and leave the Benghazi consulate to its fate because no nonlethal crowd control options were available will be the one to take the fall.
It isn't going to be pretty, but we all know this is how things work in Washington so there'll be no real surprises. This is not to say that both parties don't regret what happened, and wish the dead Americans could be restored to their loved ones, I'm sure they do, but let's face it, everything is political.

I assure you, if the Republican leadership had a magical button to undo Benghazi, they'd break out a +1 mace and break it to pieces. They regard the attack as a gift.

[Fellrike]

This is not to say that both parties don't regret what happened

Actually, I very, very much doubt that the Tea Party leadership regrets what has happened in any way.

I have a hard time believing that any Americans, political adversaries or not, don't regret the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others in Benghazi. Politics is politics, and we often find ourselves at odds, but we share a common humanity, and a belief that those in service to our country should be honored and kept safe. The fact that someone belongs to the "other" party doesn't make him evil -he's still a patriot. The evil ones are the terrorist gunmen who stormed our consulate and murdered our countrymen.

[United Dependencies]

Actually, I very, very much doubt that the Tea Party leadership regrets what has happened in any way.

I have a hard time believing that any Americans, political adversaries or not, don't regret the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others in Benghazi. Politics is politics, and we often find ourselves at odds, but we share a common humanity, and a belief that those in service to our country should be honored and kept safe. The fact that someone belongs to the "other" party doesn't make him evil -he's still a patriot. The evil ones are the terrorist gunmen who stormed our consulate and murdered our countrymen.

And Yet Mitt Romney couldn't even wait to start criticizing the president's handling of the whole affair. We had just been attacked. Where was the unity then?

[Bywall]

Actually, I very, very much doubt that the Tea Party leadership regrets what has happened in any way.

I have a hard time believing that any Americans, political adversaries or not, don't regret the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others in Benghazi. Politics is politics, and we often find ourselves at odds, but we share a common humanity, and a belief that those in service to our country should be honored and kept safe. The fact that someone belongs to the "other" party doesn't make him evil -he's still a patriot. The evil ones are the terrorist gunmen who stormed our consulate and murdered our countrymen.

Well said.

[Wikkiwallana]

Actually, I very, very much doubt that the Tea Party leadership regrets what has happened in any way.

I have a hard time believing that any Americans, political adversaries or not, don't regret the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others in Benghazi. Politics is politics, and we often find ourselves at odds, but we share a common humanity, and a belief that those in service to our country should be honored and kept safe. The fact that someone belongs to the "other" party doesn't make him evil -he's still a patriot. The evil ones are the terrorist gunmen who stormed our consulate and murdered our countrymen.

Sorry, I stop giving the benefit of the doubt once someone calls for the deaths of their political opponents simply for belonging to a different party. Which many major ideological leaders in the Tea Party have done. I'm not the one you should be giving that speech to.

[Fellrike]

I really doubt there were Republicans jubilant over the Benghazi attack, saying, "Fantastic, what a stroke of luck that some of our diplomats were murdered on the watch of a President of the opposing party. Now we have what we need to remove him, and regain the White House for ourselves." There is every reason to believe that all of us feel the same anger and grief over this incident. Sure, the Congress is disputing some of the facts, and trying to find out who's responsible, as happens in every such instance, but ultimately that's just politics, just Republicans and Democrats, not angels and devils, not absolute good versus vile evil, not darkness versus light. We disagree, but that doesn't mean we should accuse each other of celebrating the deaths of our countrymen. That's contemptible, and a shameful thing to say just because you disagree with someone about politics. We're just political opponents, guys, we're not mortal enemies.

[The New Sea Territory]

I always love the shit storm the republicans raise about this this embassy attack, but if you had raise the point of any of the 13 embassy attacks under Bush you would have called a shit storm to your self about weakening the office of the President while troops are in harms way. It's utter bullshit that this is receiving the attention it is.
Also RIP Vile Rat.

Edit with source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

How many diplomatic staff members were killed during the attacks outside of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration?

How many Democrats blame Bush for every problem in America? To many.

How many youtube videos reveal that many supports of Comrade Obama say anyone supporting the Tea Party should be Shot? To many.

How many times do we elect someone then have a massive party switch after realizing NOBODY will help you? To many.

[Wikkiwallana]

I really doubt there were Republicans jubilant over the Benghazi attack, saying, "Fantastic, what a stroke of luck that some of our diplomats were murdered on the watch of a President of the opposing party. Now we have what we need to remove him, and regain the White House for ourselves." There is every reason to believe that all of us feel the same anger and grief over this incident. Sure, the Congress is disputing some of the facts, and trying to find out who's responsible, as happens in every such instance, but ultimately that's just politics, just Republicans and Democrats, not angels and devils, not absolute good versus vile evil, not darkness versus light. We disagree, but that doesn't mean we should accuse each other of celebrating the deaths of our countrymen. That's contemptible, and a shameful thing to say just because you disagree with someone about politics. We're just political opponents, guys, we're not mortal enemies.

Holy fuck, did you ever stretch that disagreement into a full blown black-and-white worldview.

[New Chalcedon]

Actually, I very, very much doubt that the Tea Party leadership regrets what has happened in any way.

I have a hard time believing that any Americans, political adversaries or not, don't regret the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others in Benghazi. Politics is politics, and we often find ourselves at odds, but we share a common humanity, and a belief that those in service to our country should be honored and kept safe. The fact that someone belongs to the "other" party doesn't make him evil -he's still a patriot. The evil ones are the terrorist gunmen who stormed our consulate and murdered our countrymen.

Which is why Mitt Romney - at the time the most visible Republican in the USA - literally couldn't stop himself from smirking at the press conference at which he attacked Obama's handling of the situation, less than 24 hours after it happened:



In previous years - not that many previous, for that matter - you'd have been at least publicly right: people didn't publicly attempt to use tragedies befalling Americans overseas for domestic political gain. The saying was: "Politics ends at the water's edge", and it was true to at least some extent. But that ended in 2012.

However, the Republican Party has a history of setting out to profit from overseas deaths of Americans going back to at least 1968, when Richard Nixon treasonously sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks (which were being embarked upon by LBJ, who was tired of propping up Thieu's corrupt ARVN regime) in order to win the 1968 election against Vice-President Humphrey.

[Fellrike]

I'm trying to find the words I want to communicate this clearly and not give offense unintentionally, and sometimes I fumble and things don't come out right.
All I'm trying to say is, we're political opponents, but that doesn't mean we aren't all humane people who deplore things like the murder of our people in Benghazi. We're all patriots. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean we're nefarious, it just means we see things differently sometimes.
Come on, Richard Nixon was no saint, but treasonous? Isn't that just a little over the top? People called Lincon a tyrant, FDR a Communist, and Obama a Muslim, too; where does it end? In politics, civility and mutual respect are called for.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

Did you read what you posted?

The first was the text of a bill, not the results.

Second was proposed cuts

and the last was clearly labeled domestic cuts, so throw that out.

I asked for the actual results of a bill cutting security to our foreign services. You have instead opted to provide me with a news article detailing domestic cuts, another talking about Hillary Clintons opinion in proposed cuts, and a third that was merely the text with no results. I don't see what you are getting at here.

During the bleary-eyed final roll call at 4:35 a.m., 235 Republicans were joined by no Democrats in support of dramatic spending reductions that they said were needed to address a soaring annual deficit of $1.6 trillion; 189 Democrats -- as well as three Republicans -- opposed it, accusing Republicans of writing the bill with a "double meat ax.

Tell me, do you even open the links before you start bullshitting? This is all about the same bill. This is the bill House Republicans passed, with no Democratic support. These are the cuts they were pushing for. So tell me, are you a welcher and a liar, or just not particularly good at reading sources?

Dude...did you read the article? or at least watch the nifty little video that came with it?? Those cuts were for domestic programs in the article you cited. Not for security of foreign service staff. Re read it, watch the little video there, and then come back.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

Yes, you are right, building an army to nearly conquer an entire nation is not the same level as 19 men attacking a nation unaware it was a target. They are not on the same level, one is far worse.

Ha.

Al-Dine and the Tuaregs dismantling a country's security forces = Al-Qaeda now, eh? It's funny, no matter how minor a part Al-Qaeda plays, some people still pretend like they, and those who ally themselves with Al-Qaeda, are the driving force of everything bad that happens where they're present.

Ansar Dine is an ally of Al Qaeda.

US, USSR and Britain were allies in WWII, the US dropped the Atom bomb and USSR took Berlin, Britain still won. Ansar Dine wins, Al Qaeda wins.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm trying to find the words I want to communicate this clearly and not give offense unintentionally, and sometimes I fumble and things don't come out right.
All I'm trying to say is, we're political opponents, but that doesn't mean we aren't all humane people who deplore things like the murder of our people in Benghazi. We're all patriots. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean we're nefarious, it just means we see things differently sometimes.
Come on, Richard Nixon was no saint, but treasonous? Isn't that just a little over the top? People called Lincon a tyrant, FDR a Communist, and Obama a Muslim, too; where does it end? In politics, civility and mutual respect are called for.

...Watergate? Do you even history, bro?

[New Chalcedon]

I'm trying to find the words I want to communicate this clearly and not give offense unintentionally, and sometimes I fumble and things don't come out right.
All I'm trying to say is, we're political opponents, but that doesn't mean we aren't all humane people who deplore things like the murder of our people in Benghazi. We're all patriots. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean we're nefarious, it just means we see things differently sometimes.
Come on, Richard Nixon was no saint, but treasonous? Isn't that just a little over the top? People called Lincon a tyrant, FDR a Communist, and Obama a Muslim, too; where does it end? In politics, civility and mutual respect are called for.

Richard Nixon worked through an intermediary to persuade another nation's leader to sabotage US-led negotiations in time of war, knowingly giving aid & comfort to US enemies for personal political advantage.

Assuming it's true (I admit that it's unproven), I pose to you the following question: If that's not a textbook case of treason, what is?

EDIT: And if you're so interested in civility and comity, you can start with the Republican Party. They openly consider the White House to be theirs by right and refuse to acknowledge the basic legitimacy of any Democratic President. What was routine fiscal housekeeping under a Republican President is suddenly "creeping socialism", "un-American" and "loading future generations down with debt" the moment a Democrat enters the Oval Office.

Screw that shit.

[Greed and Death]

I thought the Republicans were going to let this die once they got their choice of Secretary of State.

It's about trying to demolish Hillary's Presidential prospectives and if Jesus is in a good mood getting the Uppity Negro impeached or forcing him to resign.

I think Hillary is not going to run, generally you find some government or high profile public service field if your planning to make a run for something.
Taking 3 years off would not be viewed well.