Benghazi hearing?

[Ashmoria]

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.

yeah

spine sucks when it means that nothing will get done.

[Wikkiwallana]

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


Ones that were denied due to GOP demanded budget cuts…

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 54912.html

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/

The Regional Security Office sounded the alarm and placed calls to the Benghazi CIA annex and the embassy in Tripoli, saying, "We're under attack, we need help, please send help now..." Then the call cut off. After some discussion, the CIA's Global Response Staff (GRS) at the CIA annex, which included senior security operative Tyrone S. Woods, decided to implement a rescue. By 10:05pm, the team was briefed and loaded into their armored Toyota Land Cruisers. By this time, communicators at the CIA annex were notifying the chain of command about current developments, and a small CIA and JSOC element in Tripoli that included Glen Doherty was attempting to find a way to Benghazi.[18]:39-43
The GRS team from the CIA annex arrived at the consulate and attempted to secure the perimeter and locate the ambassador and Sean Smith. They located Smith, who was unconscious and later declared dead, but were unable to find Stevens in the smoke-filled building. The team then decided to return to the annex with the survivors and Smith's body. While en route back to the annex, the group's armored vehicle was hit by AK-47 rifle fire and hand grenades. The vehicle was able to make it to its destination with two flat tires, however, and the gates to annex were closed behind them at 11:50pm.[18]:43-45[36]

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah, you're totally the first person to get cute with my lack of a name.

Seriously. It's not often these days I find arguments so bad that it actually makes me embarrassed to read them. "You wouldn't accept my sources" is not a way of demonstrating the relative nature of ambiguous things (especially when we're talking about provable things), it's a way of saying "I have some spectacularly shitty sources." You're not being clever, you're being obtuse. I'm just wondering where you got the idea that any of that shit would fly?

But who is to say what constitutues a shitty source ? What you consider a bad source, might seem like a great source to me, and vice versa.

Critical reading, sourcing, credibility. It's not an esoteric question. Seriously, who taught that it was? Is this the unintended consequence of some well meaning 'special little snowflake' teaching philosophy where they tried to tell you that everything was of the same value?

Seriously, if you can't tell what a good source is, that's not a feature of the ethereal nature of reality, it is a failing on your part.

[The Cookish States]

The President is a busy man, he most likely wouldn't worry himself with Benghazi (before the attack, that is)

Personally, I blame Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell told the forces in Italy and Spain to stand down. No, it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but at least we could have recovered the ambassador sooner, perhaps even before they raped and mutilated him. Makes me sick.


And yes, I blame whoever cut diplomatic security funding too. We're a hated country, that's no secret, they shouldn't have been so naive as to think the average Libyan likes us.

[JuNii]

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 54912.html

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/

The Regional Security Office sounded the alarm and placed calls to the Benghazi CIA annex and the embassy in Tripoli, saying, "We're under attack, we need help, please send help now..." Then the call cut off. After some discussion, the CIA's Global Response Staff (GRS) at the CIA annex, which included senior security operative Tyrone S. Woods, decided to implement a rescue. By 10:05pm, the team was briefed and loaded into their armored Toyota Land Cruisers. By this time, communicators at the CIA annex were notifying the chain of command about current developments, and a small CIA and JSOC element in Tripoli that included Glen Doherty was attempting to find a way to Benghazi.[18]:39-43
The GRS team from the CIA annex arrived at the consulate and attempted to secure the perimeter and locate the ambassador and Sean Smith. They located Smith, who was unconscious and later declared dead, but were unable to find Stevens in the smoke-filled building. The team then decided to return to the annex with the survivors and Smith's body. While en route back to the annex, the group's armored vehicle was hit by AK-47 rifle fire and hand grenades. The vehicle was able to make it to its destination with two flat tires, however, and the gates to annex were closed behind them at 11:50pm.[18]:43-45[36]

Thanks for that. Interesting read... So, the correct response to an armed assault to a government compound... Is to send in the CIA? Not the military... Oh and your source also stated that the embassy had at least three days warning... Also the ambassador was aware of the situation.

Oh and from my CBS article.

Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.

Even if they waited till Stevens called the CIA ANNEX, lives would've been saved.

[Frisivisia]

The President is a busy man, he most likely wouldn't worry himself with Benghazi (before the attack, that is)

Personally, I blame Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell told the forces in Italy and Spain to stand down. No, it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but at least we could have recovered the ambassador sooner, perhaps even before they raped and mutilated him. Makes me sick.


And yes, I blame whoever cut diplomatic security funding too. We're a hated country, that's no secret, they shouldn't have been so naive as to think the average Libyan likes us.

What did Hillary do?

[Alien Space Bats]

“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.

<spits>

Inhofe is an idiot. No, really, I mean it: He actually is a certifiable idiot.

TULSA, Okla.-- Sen. Jim Inhofe "sky-hopped" his Cessna aircraft over six vehicles and ground personnel as he tried to land last year on a closed runway in Texas, sending frightened airport workers fleeing for their lives, according to federal records and audio clips released Wednesday...

"I think (the truck driver) actually wet his britches, he was scared to death," [Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport construction supervisor Sidney] Boyd told aviation officials in a tape-recorded call to the FAA. "I mean, hell, he started trying to head for the side of the runway. The pilot could see him, or he should have been able to, he was right on him."

In the same call, Boyd described how Inhofe, who has more than 50 years of flying experience, came over after he landed, demanding to know ,"What the hell is this? I was supposed to have unlimited airspace."

The FAA probe found that Inhofe knew the runway was marked closed but "still elected to land, avoiding the men and equipment on the runway."

The new documents also show that Inhofe told investigators at first that he wasn't distracted in the cockpit when the incident occurred but then volunteered that he was "showing a new hire employee seated in the right seat how the technology of the cockpit instrumentation worked ..."

The incident wasn't the first close call Inhofe has had in the cockpit. In 2006, an experimental plane the senator was flying spun out of control while landing in Tulsa. In 1999, Inhofe made an emergency landing in a Tulsa suburb after the plane he was flying lost a propeller.

— FAA Investigation Reveals Senator's Frightening Landing", FOX News, April 14th, 2011

WASHINGTON -- After Sen. James Inhofe landed his small plane on a closed runway at a rural South Texas airport last October and sent workers on the ground scrambling, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered him to take remedial piloting lessons.

Now it's FAA officials who are getting a lesson from the 76-year-old Oklahoma Republican on the pitfalls of crossing a senior lawmaker.

Inhofe, who's been flying for 50 years, is sponsoring a bill to strengthen the position of pilots when contesting FAA enforcement of safety regulations in cases like his.

"With any bureaucracy that has the power to take action against an individual, it's our job in Congress to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent agency overreach," Inhofe said in a speech to the Senate before introducing the bill last week.

Pilots sometimes aren't given access to all the evidence that might help their case, he said. They can be punished for not following notices on safety conditions at specific airports even if the notices weren't publicly available before the flights, he said.

Pilots can appeal FAA decisions to the National Transportation Safety Board, but the board usually "rubber stamps" the agency's recommendations, Inhofe said.

"I was never fully appreciative of the feeling of desperation until it happened to me," he said. "I did nothing wrong but at any time I could have suffered a revocation of my license."

There were trucks and workers on the closed runway, which was marked with a giant yellow X. Inhofe said he didn't see the workers until it was too late to safely abort the landing...

— "Sen. Inhofe Strikes Back at FAA After Runway Run-In, FOX News, July 10th, 2011

[Ensiferum]

The President is a busy man, he most likely wouldn't worry himself with Benghazi (before the attack, that is)

Personally, I blame Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell told the forces in Italy and Spain to stand down. No, it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but at least we could have recovered the ambassador sooner, perhaps even before they raped and mutilated him. Makes me sick.


And yes, I blame whoever cut diplomatic security funding too. We're a hated country, that's no secret, they shouldn't have been so naive as to think the average Libyan likes us.

What did Hillary do?

Not Monica.

[United Dependencies]

Personally, I blame Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell told the forces in Italy and Spain to stand down. No, it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but at least we could have recovered the ambassador sooner, perhaps even before they raped and mutilated him. Makes me sick.

What are you talking about?

[Grave_n_idle]

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)

When I say 'no one cares' - I'm not saying that no one cares that lives were lost, or that there was violence - I'm saying no one cares about the rampant posturing, the desperate attempt to stir controversy out of a real tragedy. I was listening to Medved a couple of days ago, and he was sadly lamenting that this wont bring down the Obama administration.

Because that's what the extreme right wants. Not justice, not truth, not transparency. They want to use it bring down the White House, and they're pretty open about it - and no one cares.

[New England and The Maritimes]

<spits>

Inhofe is an idiot. No, really, I mean it: He actually is a certifiable idiot.

TULSA, Okla.-- Sen. Jim Inhofe "sky-hopped" his Cessna aircraft over six vehicles and ground personnel as he tried to land last year on a closed runway in Texas, sending frightened airport workers fleeing for their lives, according to federal records and audio clips released Wednesday...

"I think (the truck driver) actually wet his britches, he was scared to death," [Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport construction supervisor Sidney] Boyd told aviation officials in a tape-recorded call to the FAA. "I mean, hell, he started trying to head for the side of the runway. The pilot could see him, or he should have been able to, he was right on him."

In the same call, Boyd described how Inhofe, who has more than 50 years of flying experience, came over after he landed, demanding to know ,"What the hell is this? I was supposed to have unlimited airspace."

The FAA probe found that Inhofe knew the runway was marked closed but "still elected to land, avoiding the men and equipment on the runway."

The new documents also show that Inhofe told investigators at first that he wasn't distracted in the cockpit when the incident occurred but then volunteered that he was "showing a new hire employee seated in the right seat how the technology of the cockpit instrumentation worked ..."

The incident wasn't the first close call Inhofe has had in the cockpit. In 2006, an experimental plane the senator was flying spun out of control while landing in Tulsa. In 1999, Inhofe made an emergency landing in a Tulsa suburb after the plane he was flying lost a propeller.

— FAA Investigation Reveals Senator's Frightening Landing", FOX News, April 14th, 2011

WASHINGTON -- After Sen. James Inhofe landed his small plane on a closed runway at a rural South Texas airport last October and sent workers on the ground scrambling, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered him to take remedial piloting lessons.

Now it's FAA officials who are getting a lesson from the 76-year-old Oklahoma Republican on the pitfalls of crossing a senior lawmaker.

Inhofe, who's been flying for 50 years, is sponsoring a bill to strengthen the position of pilots when contesting FAA enforcement of safety regulations in cases like his.

"With any bureaucracy that has the power to take action against an individual, it's our job in Congress to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent agency overreach," Inhofe said in a speech to the Senate before introducing the bill last week.

Pilots sometimes aren't given access to all the evidence that might help their case, he said. They can be punished for not following notices on safety conditions at specific airports even if the notices weren't publicly available before the flights, he said.

Pilots can appeal FAA decisions to the National Transportation Safety Board, but the board usually "rubber stamps" the agency's recommendations, Inhofe said.

"I was never fully appreciative of the feeling of desperation until it happened to me," he said. "I did nothing wrong but at any time I could have suffered a revocation of my license."

There were trucks and workers on the closed runway, which was marked with a giant yellow X. Inhofe said he didn't see the workers until it was too late to safely abort the landing...

— "Sen. Inhofe Strikes Back at FAA After Runway Run-In, FOX News, July 10th, 2011

In a just society he would be in prison on corruption charges.

[JuNii]

The President is a busy man, he most likely wouldn't worry himself with Benghazi (before the attack, that is)

Personally, I blame Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell told the forces in Italy and Spain to stand down. No, it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but at least we could have recovered the ambassador sooner, perhaps even before they raped and mutilated him. Makes me sick.


And yes, I blame whoever cut diplomatic security funding too. We're a hated country, that's no secret, they shouldn't have been so naive as to think the average Libyan likes us.

What did Hillary do?

According to some, she denied requests to increase the security at the embassy while she's denying ever seeing those requests...

[Grave_n_idle]

The President is a busy man, he most likely wouldn't worry himself with Benghazi (before the attack, that is)

Personally, I blame Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell told the forces in Italy and Spain to stand down. No, it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but at least we could have recovered the ambassador sooner, perhaps even before they raped and mutilated him. Makes me sick.


And yes, I blame whoever cut diplomatic security funding too. We're a hated country, that's no secret, they shouldn't have been so naive as to think the average Libyan likes us.

I don't 'blame' anyone - except those who masterminded and carried out the attack.

Retrospect is perfect - why weren't we better prepared?

Because it's a fucking shoebox in the arse-end of nowhere. Because we have missions and consulates and embassies all over the world, and it's ridiculous to pretend we could turn them ALL into fortified citadels. Because diplomacy can be a dangerous job, and that's one of the ACCEPTED risks.

It's stupid to pretend we were unprepared for the incident, because there's no way we could have BEEN prepared for the incident WITHOUT the benefit of hindsight - and because we were as prepared as we're ever likely to be - it's a diplomatic post in a relatively hostile part of the world. And shit happens.

SO there's no point 'blaming' Clinton. Or the President. Or the GOP who would have blocked any appropriation significant enough to have seriously beefed up security at EVERY diplomatic post before the attack.

Blame the terrorists. And then blame the rightwing talking-heads and the partisan political opportunists who have turned a real tragedy, real loss of life, and real blood - into theatre.

[JuNii]

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)

He was the ambassador there... He was there, according to Fox News, asking for more security when he heard about the escalating violence going on.

[JuNii]

The President is a busy man, he most likely wouldn't worry himself with Benghazi (before the attack, that is)

Personally, I blame Hillary Clinton and whoever the hell told the forces in Italy and Spain to stand down. No, it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but at least we could have recovered the ambassador sooner, perhaps even before they raped and mutilated him. Makes me sick.


And yes, I blame whoever cut diplomatic security funding too. We're a hated country, that's no secret, they shouldn't have been so naive as to think the average Libyan likes us.

I don't 'blame' anyone - except those who masterminded and carried out the attack.

Retrospect is perfect - why weren't we better prepared?

Because it's a fucking shoebox in the arse-end of nowhere. Because we have missions and consulates and embassies all over the world, and it's ridiculous to pretend we could turn them ALL into fortified citadels. Because diplomacy can be a dangerous job, and that's one of the ACCEPTED risks.

It's stupid to pretend we were unprepared for the incident, because there's no way we could have BEEN prepared for the incident WITHOUT the benefit of hindsight - and because we were as prepared as we're ever likely to be - it's a diplomatic post in a relatively hostile part of the world. And shit happens.

SO there's no point 'blaming' Clinton. Or the President. Or the GOP who would have blocked any appropriation significant enough to have seriously beefed up security at EVERY diplomatic post before the attack.

Blame the terrorists. And then blame the rightwing talking-heads and the partisan political opportunists who have turned a real tragedy, real loss of life, and real blood - into theatre.

Agreed... I also want to blame all those people trying to shift the blame to Mark Basseley Youssef.

[JuNii]

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 54912.html

from your source...

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.

"It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department, from Secretary [Hillary] Clinton to President Obama's White House," Chaffetz told Fox and Friends on Tuesday.

Chaffetz and Issa co-signed a letter to the State Department, demanding answers on to the Benghazi security detail. State Department officials and other witnesses will testify before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations on Wednesday

.

[New Chalcedon]

And, likewise, Democrats will define bipartisanship as the willingness of Republicans to accept their own proposals. Like Disraeli, we all consider a man agreeable, who agrees with us.

Wrong. Democrats define "bipartisanship" as Republicans voting for Republican proposals, like the health care reform that was a Heritage Foundation idea, promoted by Republicans until January 2009 and enacted into law in at least one State with a Republican Governor. You may recall that the Republican response to this proposal was "IT'S SOSHIALIZM!!!!one!!eleven!"

Why? Because it was being proposed by Democrats. That was the sum total of the Republican's objection to Obamacare - a policy proposal that was based on Republican principles and proposals, had been enacted by a Republican Governor at the State level and had been supported by Republicans at all levels until Obama took office.

Additionally, Republicans face primaries on the grounds that they compromise - ever - with Democrats. This is not true of the Democratic Party.

[JuNii]

And, likewise, Democrats will define bipartisanship as the willingness of Republicans to accept their own proposals. Like Disraeli, we all consider a man agreeable, who agrees with us.

Wrong. Democrats define "bipartisanship" as Republicans voting for Republican proposals, like the health care reform that was a Heritage Foundation idea, promoted by Republicans until January 2009 and enacted into law in at least one State with a Republican Governor. You may recall that the Republican response to this proposal was "IT'S SOSHIALIZM!!!!one!!eleven!"

Why? Because it was being proposed by Democrats. That was the sum total of the Republican's objection to Obamacare - a policy proposal that was based on Republican principles and proposals, had been enacted by a Republican Governor at the State level and had been supported by Republicans at all levels until Obama took office.

Additionally, Republicans face primaries on the grounds that they compromise - ever - with Democrats. This is not true of the Democratic Party.

People keep bringing that healthcare thing up... Yet can you tell us why, if the Republicans came up with the proposal before... Why did the Democrats fight against it back then? I'm pretty sure the affordable care act is not completely, word for word, the republican's former proposal. I'm sure the Dems made changes to it that the Reps don't agree with.

[Ixzara]

Wrong. Democrats define "bipartisanship" as Republicans voting for Republican proposals, like the health care reform that was a Heritage Foundation idea, promoted by Republicans until January 2009 and enacted into law in at least one State with a Republican Governor. You may recall that the Republican response to this proposal was "IT'S SOSHIALIZM!!!!one!!eleven!"

Why? Because it was being proposed by Democrats. That was the sum total of the Republican's objection to Obamacare - a policy proposal that was based on Republican principles and proposals, had been enacted by a Republican Governor at the State level and had been supported by Republicans at all levels until Obama took office.

Additionally, Republicans face primaries on the grounds that they compromise - ever - with Democrats. This is not true of the Democratic Party.

People keep bringing that healthcare thing up... Yet can you tell us why, if the Republicans came up with the proposal before... Why did the Democrats fight against it back then? I'm pretty sure the affordable care act is not completely, word for word, the republican's former proposal. I'm sure the Dems made changes to it that the Reps don't agree with.

*cough*..a tax..*cough

[New Chalcedon]

Wrong. Democrats define "bipartisanship" as Republicans voting for Republican proposals, like the health care reform that was a Heritage Foundation idea, promoted by Republicans until January 2009 and enacted into law in at least one State with a Republican Governor. You may recall that the Republican response to this proposal was "IT'S SOSHIALIZM!!!!one!!eleven!"

Why? Because it was being proposed by Democrats. That was the sum total of the Republican's objection to Obamacare - a policy proposal that was based on Republican principles and proposals, had been enacted by a Republican Governor at the State level and had been supported by Republicans at all levels until Obama took office.

Additionally, Republicans face primaries on the grounds that they compromise - ever - with Democrats. This is not true of the Democratic Party.

People keep bringing that healthcare thing up... Yet can you tell us why, if the Republicans came up with the proposal before... Why did the Democrats fight against it back then?

The Democrats didn't agree with it back in 1993 because they - most of them - wanted Hillarycare instead, which was single-payer. A subsidised-insurance model with compulsory purchase was the Republican alternative to Hillarycare. Republicans in the Senate were publicly advocating this model as late as 2006, and Mitt Romney was writing op-eds just before Obama took office advocating Romneycare, which is essentially Obamacare as it turned out. When a Democrat - Obama - proposed Obamacare, the moderate Democrats liked it, and the progressive Democrats decided that it was better than nothing and could be improved further down the road.

Before you ask "what changed?", the answer is that two things changed. First, the Overton Window shifted - again - to the right, rendering single-payer politically unfeasible. Second, in 1993 the Democrats had a President who pushed single-payer, while in 2009, mandated insurance was the President's starting point.

I'm pretty sure the affordable care act is not completely, word for word, the republican's former proposal. I'm sure the Dems made changes to it that the Reps don't agree with.

The same guy wrote it. I shit you not - Obama went out, looked for the guy who wrote Romneycare for Mitt Romney, and asked him to write this bill. The bills are substantially identical, a point that the bills' author noted and that Mitt Romney conceded when he admitted that his only gripe with Obamacare is that Romneycare was appropriate for the State level, not the Federal level.

[Cannot think of a name]

Wrong. Democrats define "bipartisanship" as Republicans voting for Republican proposals, like the health care reform that was a Heritage Foundation idea, promoted by Republicans until January 2009 and enacted into law in at least one State with a Republican Governor. You may recall that the Republican response to this proposal was "IT'S SOSHIALIZM!!!!one!!eleven!"

Why? Because it was being proposed by Democrats. That was the sum total of the Republican's objection to Obamacare - a policy proposal that was based on Republican principles and proposals, had been enacted by a Republican Governor at the State level and had been supported by Republicans at all levels until Obama took office.

Additionally, Republicans face primaries on the grounds that they compromise - ever - with Democrats. This is not true of the Democratic Party.

People keep bringing that healthcare thing up... Yet can you tell us why, if the Republicans came up with the proposal before... Why did the Democrats fight against it back then? I'm pretty sure the affordable care act is not completely, word for word, the republican's former proposal. I'm sure the Dems made changes to it that the Reps don't agree with.

Really? I mean...really?

When the Republicans proposed it in the 90s, the Democrats were pushing for true universal healthcare. The Republicans proposed this instead and wouldn't budge.

Obama wanted universal health care but compromised this time by actually just fucking giving in to their initial counterproposal, that they now pretended they never had as an idea. And you fell for it. What's that like?

When Romney proposed it in Mass., he actually had bipartisan support. C'mon man, put some effort into this shit.

[Ashmoria]

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)

When I say 'no one cares' - I'm not saying that no one cares that lives were lost, or that there was violence - I'm saying no one cares about the rampant posturing, the desperate attempt to stir controversy out of a real tragedy. I was listening to Medved a couple of days ago, and he was sadly lamenting that this wont bring down the Obama administration.

Because that's what the extreme right wants. Not justice, not truth, not transparency. They want to use it bring down the White House, and they're pretty open about it - and no one cares.

the whole thing is bizarre unless you realize that its part of the conservative industrial complex. no one outside the right fringe thinks there is anything in the Benghazi tragedy outside of a fuckup on someone's part. and they forgive that fuckup as "shit that happens in the world".

inside the conservative industrial complex its a chance to make big money on punditry, books, speaking fees, radio and tv ratings, and a diminishing of the president that drives gun sales, bugout bags, dried food and emergency equipment sales.

and a chance to try to tarnish Hillary Clinton's image in the eyes of non-fringe republicans.

no one in the normal world hears or thinks about Benghazi. inside the conservative world its been a constant drumbeat of conspiracy ever since it happened.

[Ashmoria]

What did Hillary do?

According to some, she denied requests to increase the security at the embassy while she's denying ever seeing those requests...

which is probably true considering how little security is available for the entire state department overseas missions. it has to be a crazy balancing act of trying to figure out where the most dangerous spots are on any given day.

[Xsyne]

What did Hillary do?

According to some, she denied requests to increase the security at the embassy while she's denying ever seeing those requests...

According to some, she's a lizard person in disguise. Some isn't very reliable.

[Ashmoria]

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)

He was the ambassador there... He was there, according to Fox News, asking for more security when he heard about the escalating violence going on.

that doesn't make any sense.