Benghazi hearing?

[Gallifrey Express]

Some of you seem to be taking this all too personally. You should expect that each party will take any opportunity it can to gain advantage over the other. It's just politics. This is the way the world works. You can't expect too much out of politicians, whatever their party.

Defeatist. Very defeatist. In fact, stupidly so. This isn't just politics. It's a party that's on life support grasping at straws because it cannot fathom the idea that a black man in power isn't doing something to fuck over the country.

[Gauthier]

Being chased by the ghosts of Larry Hagman and David Crosby.

David Crosby's not dead.

Maybe not, but his liver is.

[Wikkiwallana]

I could make a drinking game out of everything wrong with what you say…

Is that your liver running down the road, screaming?

I'm a teetotaler.

That was my bladder.

[Wikkiwallana]

How are events that took place in 1993 any harder to learn about than any other historical event that happened when you were young, or even preceded your birth? Learning about stuff that happened in 1993 is no harder than learning about Hannibal's crossing of the Alps with his war elephants.

Because I have only so much time?

[Farnhamia]

Before Wednesday’s hearing on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, Republicans in Congress promised explosive new details about the administration’s mishandling of the episode. Instead, the hearing showed, yet again, that sober fact-finding is not their mission. Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The attack on the lightly protected consulate in Benghazi in September that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was a tragic event, and Americans should know the full story. The most authoritative account, completed in December, came from an independent inquiry, led by two respected and now retired officials — Thomas Pickering, a former deputy secretary of state, and Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Their report was unsparing in concluding that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” in the State Department’s bureaus of diplomatic security and near eastern affairs resulted in a “security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for the security failures when she testified at a Congressional hearing in January.

Wednesday’s hearing, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican of California who is chairman of the House oversight committee, featured three witnesses who testified about those failures. One of them, Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 official at the American Embassy in Tripoli, was at the embassy the night of the Benghazi attack. He said he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled, a charge the State Department denied.

The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.

The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible.

The Senate should move quickly to confirm the ambassador, Deborah Jones, whose hearing was Tuesday.

Congress and the Obama administration also need to pay more attention to what’s happening in Libya in general. After helping opposition forces oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the United States seems to have lost interest. That is a huge mistake as militias threaten the country’s democratic transition and stability. That surely is not an outcome that Ambassador Stevens would have wanted.

[Fellrike]

How are events that took place in 1993 any harder to learn about than any other historical event that happened when you were young, or even preceded your birth? Learning about stuff that happened in 1993 is no harder than learning about Hannibal's crossing of the Alps with his war elephants.

Because I have only so much time?

Fair enough. When there's so much history, who can be bothered to learn it all? Especially the most boring stuff.

[JuNii]

Also, there is a tremendous difference between a suicide bombing and a several hour long attack. One is nearly impossible to prevent, while the other can easily be repelled with proper security.

They killed nearly 100 attackers. Please explain how people that committed and with those kind of numbers can easily be repelled from a small consulate.

Lets see, just a small suggestion from this armchair adventurer... Increase the number of guards, ammunition and ordinance there and evacuate all non essential personnel. IF they had the time, fortifying the place with sandbags would've been possible, ordering the stand own pretty much insured that the ambassador would've died...

[Wikkiwallana]

They killed nearly 100 attackers. Please explain how people that committed and with those kind of numbers can easily be repelled from a small consulate.

Lets see, just a small suggestion from this armchair adventurer... Increase the number of guards, ammunition and ordinance there

With what money?

and evacuate all non essential personnel.

Through the giant murder mob?

IF they had the time, fortifying the place with sandbags would've been possible, ordering the stand own pretty much insured that the ambassador would've died...

And you have proof that units told to stand down could have done something the ones sent in to rescue the people at the consulate did not?

[Farnhamia]

They killed nearly 100 attackers. Please explain how people that committed and with those kind of numbers can easily be repelled from a small consulate.

Lets see, just a small suggestion from this armchair adventurer... Increase the number of guards, ammunition and ordinance there and evacuate all non essential personnel. IF they had the time, fortifying the place with sandbags would've been possible, ordering the stand own pretty much insured that the ambassador would've died...

Hindsight is always so nice. Yes, that would probably have given people from the CIA annex nearby a chance to get there. Then again, the attackers had automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns (link).

[JuNii]

Lets see, just a small suggestion from this armchair adventurer... Increase the number of guards, ammunition and ordinance there

With what money?

let's see... Didn't the reps have money set aside to fight their "war on terror"?

and evacuate all non essential personnel.

Through the giant murder mob?

I believe that there were requests to upgrade the security days, maybe even weeks before the attack. If you believe Fox News.

IF they had the time, fortifying the place with sandbags would've been possible, ordering the stand own pretty much insured that the ambassador would've died...

And you have proof that units told to stand down could have done something the ones sent in to rescue the people at the consulate did not?[/quote] a team of special forces trained for such rescue within hours flight time, ready to go, yeah, you're right. They wouldn't that've made any difference.

[Wikkiwallana]

With what money?

let's see... Didn't the reps have money set aside to fight their "war on terror"?

You'd think so, after declaring one, but no.

Through the giant murder mob?

I believe that there were requests to upgrade the security days, maybe even weeks before the attack. If you believe Fox News.

Ones that were denied due to GOP demanded budget cuts…

And you have proof that units told to stand down could have done something the ones sent in to rescue the people at the consulate did not?

a team of special forces trained for such rescue within hours flight time, ready to go, yeah, you're right. They wouldn't that've made any difference.

The attack was started at 9:40. A CIA team was dispatched at 10:05. They made it back to the local CIA annex with the survivors at 11:50. By the time the additional agents had been flown in, they would have been superfluous, what with everything already being over.

Edit: fixed tags

[Ashmoria]

And thus, the morons will yet make a prophet of me. Ever since 2010, I've been saying that the Republicans will no rest until they impeach Barack Obama. They've got the votes, and they're going to do it, and there's no way that they will be persuaded not to; it's as inevitable as the sun, the moon, the wind, and the tides. It's a maniacal compulsion, and these idiots are going to go through with it come Hell or high water. It may take them a couple more years to get around to it, but it's going to happen. "Benghazigate" isn't "Watergate with fatalities"; it's "Whitewater" and "Travelgate" and "Vince Foster" and "Monicagate", with even less substance than last time around.

And it's all because Republicans are fucking nuts and can't believe they're capable of losing elections.

inhofe actually came out and said it yesterday.

Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Thursday with “The Rusty Humphries Show” that impeachment would become an issue soon over the “greatest cover-up in American history.”

“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said.

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.

“Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said.

I wonder what high crime or misdemeanor they are going to charge him with.

they have voted to repeal obamacare 40 times. there is no reason why they wont vote to impeach president Obama equally uselessly.

[Gallifrey Express]

inhofe actually came out and said it yesterday.

I wonder what high crime or misdemeanor they are going to charge him with.

they have voted to repeal obamacare 40 times. there is no reason why they wont vote to impeach president Obama equally uselessly.

I can just imagine them having a few dozen impeachment hearings. At some point, Obama would end up becoming the snarkiest asshole ever.

[Wikkiwallana]

I wonder what high crime or misdemeanor they are going to charge him with.

they have voted to repeal obamacare 40 times. there is no reason why they wont vote to impeach president Obama equally uselessly.

I can just imagine them having a few dozen impeachment hearings. At some point, Obama would end up becoming the snarkiest asshole ever.

They'd have to wait until 2016 and hope they take the Senate to actually hold any hearings. Because his own party sure as hell isn't going to try him for crimes they know are completely fictional.

[Ashmoria]

I wonder what high crime or misdemeanor they are going to charge him with.

they have voted to repeal obamacare 40 times. there is no reason why they wont vote to impeach president Obama equally uselessly.

I can just imagine them having a few dozen impeachment hearings. At some point, Obama would end up becoming the snarkiest asshole ever.

I was just thinking that they might vote to impeach him a dozen times in the next 3 years. the senate isn't doing anything anyway. they may as well have constant trials that result in acquittal (or whatever the "not guilty" verdict is in impeachment)

[Ashmoria]

I can just imagine them having a few dozen impeachment hearings. At some point, Obama would end up becoming the snarkiest asshole ever.

They'd have to wait until 2016 and hope they take the Senate to actually hold any hearings. Because his own party sure as hell isn't going to try him for crimes they know are completely fictional.

don't they have to hold a trial no matter that they are going to acquit him?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

It's party-political circus. It's a big deal all over the extreme right pundit circuit, because it's an alternative to the more mundane real political news in the US, which doesn't serve their ideological agenda.

Anywhere outside of the extreme rightwing, it's transparent reactionary posturing... and no one really cares.

[Wikkiwallana]

They'd have to wait until 2016 and hope they take the Senate to actually hold any hearings. Because his own party sure as hell isn't going to try him for crimes they know are completely fictional.

don't they have to hold a trial no matter that they are going to acquit him?

Do they? I figured it was like all those pointless repeal Obamacare votes where they could just not enter it into the docket and go on with their lives.

[Ashmoria]

don't they have to hold a trial no matter that they are going to acquit him?

Do they? I figured it was like all those pointless repeal Obamacare votes where they could just not enter it into the docket and go on with their lives.

I don't know that it has ever happened that a president was impeached over total bullshit with the house knowing that there was no chance of him being convicted by the senate.

[JuNii]

let's see... Didn't the reps have money set aside to fight their "war on terror"?

You'd think so, after declaring one, but no.

I believe that there were requests to upgrade the security days, maybe even weeks before the attack. If you believe Fox News.

Ones that were denied due to GOP demanded budget cuts…

http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-rep ... le/2527958 source for your claim?

a team of special forces trained for such rescue within hours flight time, ready to go, yeah, you're right. They wouldn't that've made any difference.

The attack was started at 9:40. A CIA team was dispatched at 10:05. They made it back to the local CIA annex with the survivors at 11:50. By the time the additional agents had been flown in, they would have been superfluous, what with everything already being over.

Edit: fixed tags

who was dispatched??? CIA? Ambassador is screaming "we're under attack" and they end in an intelligence team while telling special forces to stand down? Source? The hearings were saying no one was sent. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... g-attacks/

[Greed and Death]

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.

It's party-political circus. It's a big deal all over the extreme right pundit circuit, because it's an alternative to the more mundane real political news in the US, which doesn't serve their ideological agenda.

Anywhere outside of the extreme rightwing, it's transparent reactionary posturing... and no one really cares.

Sounds about right.

[Wikkiwallana]

Do they? I figured it was like all those pointless repeal Obamacare votes where they could just not enter it into the docket and go on with their lives.

I don't know that it has ever happened that a president was impeached over total bullshit with the house knowing that there was no chance of him being convicted by the senate.

Well, Wikipedia implies that it does indeed go straight into trial. But it also says a two-thirds majority to convict, and that sure as hell isn't happening in 2016, even if they have a spectacular success in the elections.

Also, as an interesting bit of trivia, a VP would preside over their own impeachment, do to an oversight in the writing of the Constitution. It would almost be worth putting a total slimeball in the position while the opposing party controlled both houses, just to watch the legal rodeo.

[Arkinesia]

Uh, no. Actually, Democrats have constantly considered bipartisanship to be something where both parties compromise to accomplish mutual gain.

Because democrats have no spine.

Compromise is a tonic that soothes the collective soul and ensures that even if we do not progress as much as we should, we progress nonetheless.

Ideologies are great, but ideologues gum up the works.

[Ashmoria]

It's party-political circus. It's a big deal all over the extreme right pundit circuit, because it's an alternative to the more mundane real political news in the US, which doesn't serve their ideological agenda.

Anywhere outside of the extreme rightwing, it's transparent reactionary posturing... and no one really cares.

Sounds about right.

its not that no one really cares its more than the right wing screeching about cover-ups is so stupidly over the top that it leaves no room for figuring out what actually went wrong and whether or not the recommendations were adequate to the true problems.

I haven't even heard a discussion of why the ambassador felt that he had to go to Benghazi that day when he seemingly felt that he had inadequate security. (not that ive paid close attention)

[Disserbia]

Because democrats have no spine.

Compromise is a tonic that soothes the collective soul and ensures that even if we do not progress as much as we should, we progress nonetheless.

Ideologies are great, but ideologues gum up the works.

I'm about 50 oz of cider deep so let's avoid a vexing misconunik and tele me exactly how much of that was sarcasm