Benghazi hearing?

[Arkinesia]

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.

Not to mention useless. Who cares if you have balls if you never get anything worthwhile done? There's a reason Ron Paul has no respect outside his neckbeard fanbase.

[Ashmoria]

yeah

spine sucks when it means that nothing will get done.

Not to mention useless. Who cares if you have balls if you never get anything worthwhile done? There's a reason Ron Paul has no respect outside his neckbeard fanbase.

yeah.

and the republicans have spine all the way to single digits in congressional popularity. they are riding their principles to the bottom.

[Wikkiwallana]

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

Thanks for that. Interesting read... So, the correct response to an armed assault to a government compound... Is to send in the CIA?

The CIA is well armed and was the only group that could make it in time. Well, the CIA and the local Libyan military, who provided quite a bit of assistance.

Not the military...

U.S. Army commando unit was sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy the night of the attack but did not deploy to Benghazi. U.S. officials say the team did not arrive at Sigonella until after the attack was over.[56]

Oh and your source also stated that the embassy had at least three days warning... Also the ambassador was aware of the situation.

Interesting, mind directing me to the part where it says that?

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.

Maybe.

Edit: fixed tags

[Wikkiwallana]

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...

And just who are these "some"?

Edit: Further replies:

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

.

And how were they supposed to increase security on a reduced security budget?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

It's obvious that it's partisanship, and it's obvious where that partisanship is coming from.

January 22nd, 2002 - 4 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

June 14th, 2002 - 12 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

February 28th, 2003 - 2 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

June 30th, 2004 - 2 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

December 6th, 2004 - 9 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

March 2nd, 2006 - 2 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

September 12th, 2006 - 4 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

March 18th, 2008 - 2 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

July 9th, 2008 - 6 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).

September 17th, 2008 - 16 dead. (Republican President. No Republican outrage).


10 attacks on diplomatic targets, in 6 years, 60 deaths, no Democratic President, no outrage.

[Rossiya]

The truth is this is Obama's watergate and the liberals are scared of the revelations of an executive coverup.

But no seriously, I wouldn't say it's a coverup or a "watergate." Now if Bush was president, it would obviously be both.

lol
A guy who asks himself "What would Nixon do?" speaking of watergates.

[New Chalcedon]

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

And just who are these "some"?

Edit: Further replies:

from your source...

.

And how were they supposed to increase security on a reduced security budget?

They should have gone to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market to do more with less. Clearly, their failure to utilise the wonders of the Free Market in all operations of that horrible, sclerotic, job-killing beast that is Government is treason and indicates that they are in league with the terrorists to bring America to its knees. *nods*

[Arkinesia]

The truth is this is Obama's watergate and the liberals are scared of the revelations of an executive coverup.

But no seriously, I wouldn't say it's a coverup or a "watergate." Now if Bush was president, it would obviously be both.

lol
A guy who asks himself "What would Nixon do?" speaking of watergates.

That's a completely unfair judgment, and you should feel bad.

Nixon got us off the gold standard, opened up serious dialogue with China, signed a key nuclear arms reduction treaty, started Superfund, and established the EPA.

Claiming that Nixon was a bad President on account of Watergate is an insult to American history, and I would say he very much deserves the title of “America's Last Liberal President.”

[Ashmoria]

lol
A guy who asks himself "What would Nixon do?" speaking of watergates.

That's a completely unfair judgment, and you should feel bad.

Nixon got us off the gold standard, opened up serious dialogue with China, signed a key nuclear arms reduction treaty, started Superfund, and established the EPA.

Claiming that Nixon was a bad President on account of Watergate is an insult to American history, and I would say he very much deserves the title of “America's Last Liberal President.”

sure

but you missed the part where president Johnson had a peace agreement with the north Vietnamese in October '68 that Nixon scuttled by calling up the NV ambassador and telling him that if he waited he would get a better deal from the Nixon administration. then another 30,000 americans died in Vietnam.

[Mike the Progressive]

That's a completely unfair judgment, and you should feel bad.

Nixon got us off the gold standard, opened up serious dialogue with China, signed a key nuclear arms reduction treaty, started Superfund, and established the EPA.

Claiming that Nixon was a bad President on account of Watergate is an insult to American history, and I would say he very much deserves the title of “America's Last Liberal President.”

sure

but you missed the part where president Johnson had a peace agreement with the north Vietnamese in October '68 that Nixon scuttled by calling up the NV ambassador and telling him that if he waited he would get a better deal from the Nixon administration. then another 30,000 americans died in Vietnam.

First, he contacted the South Vietnamese. Not the North Vietnamese ambassador.

The kinda funny thing about this "recent revelation" was that it was neither "recent" or even much of a revelation. The biggest revelation about those records was the fact that Johnson was actually planning to fly to Chicago on the night of the '68 convention and accept the nomination of president, but the secret service wouldn't let him because his safety couldn't be guaranteed. I mean for Christ sake George Herring wrote about Nixon's campaign diplomacy as early as 2002 in America's Longest War.

In any case, if you knew anything about the Vietnam War. The South Vietnamese were not on board from the gecko, Johnson feared the loss of American credibility wouldn't make peace worthwhile especially if South Vietnam was not on board, therefore there was never going to be a peace. Nixon's efforts was just the final nail in the coffin. But you also ignore the assumption that North Vietnam could be trusted to keep its word, when it hadn't in Laos or Cambodia several times over. Nobody, except McGovern was advocating for a separate peace with North Vietnam. Johnson, Humphrey -the eventual Democratic nominee-, and Nixon all believed in "peace with honor," that is an eventual withdrawal. The only difference was Nixon, for the first time in the 20 years since American involvement there, actually had a clear, cut plan.

[Ashmoria]

sure

but you missed the part where president Johnson had a peace agreement with the north Vietnamese in October '68 that Nixon scuttled by calling up the NV ambassador and telling him that if he waited he would get a better deal from the Nixon administration. then another 30,000 americans died in Vietnam.

First, he contacted the South Vietnamese. Not the North Vietnamese ambassador.

The kinda funny thing about this "recent revelation" was that it was neither "recent" or even much of a revelation. The biggest revelation about those records was the fact that Johnson was actually planning to fly to Chicago on the night of the '68 convention and accept the nomination of president, but the secret service wouldn't let him because his safety couldn't be guaranteed. I mean for Christ sake George Herring wrote about Nixon's campaign diplomacy as early as 2002 in America's Longest War.

In any case, if you knew anything about the Vietnam War. The South Vietnamese were not on board from the gecko, Johnson feared the loss of American credibility wouldn't make peace worthwhile especially if South Vietnam was not on board, therefore there was never going to be a peace. Nixon's efforts was just the final nail in the coffin. But it also ignores the assumption that North Vietnam could be trusted to keep its word, when it hadn't in Laos or Cambodia several times over.

oh so that makes it all OK? Nixon makes sure it doesn't happen and because we cant say for sure that it would have that doesn't make him a horrible person who should never have been let near power?

[Mike the Progressive]

First, he contacted the South Vietnamese. Not the North Vietnamese ambassador.

The kinda funny thing about this "recent revelation" was that it was neither "recent" or even much of a revelation. The biggest revelation about those records was the fact that Johnson was actually planning to fly to Chicago on the night of the '68 convention and accept the nomination of president, but the secret service wouldn't let him because his safety couldn't be guaranteed. I mean for Christ sake George Herring wrote about Nixon's campaign diplomacy as early as 2002 in America's Longest War.

In any case, if you knew anything about the Vietnam War. The South Vietnamese were not on board from the gecko, Johnson feared the loss of American credibility wouldn't make peace worthwhile especially if South Vietnam was not on board, therefore there was never going to be a peace. Nixon's efforts was just the final nail in the coffin. But it also ignores the assumption that North Vietnam could be trusted to keep its word, when it hadn't in Laos or Cambodia several times over.

oh so that makes it all OK? Nixon makes sure it doesn't happen and because we cant say for sure that it would have that doesn't make him a horrible person who should never have been let near power?

It wasn't going to happen anyway, that's my point. Johnson would not accept a separate peace with North Vietnam, South Vietnam would not accept peace with North Vietnam, so there was going to be no peace with North Vietnam. So your argument, emotionally charged and factually ignorant, is wrong. Hate Nixon for watergate, hate him for his price and wage controls, but for Vietnam? For fuck's sake, to throw so much dislike on the man who did withdraw all troops without completely and totaling screwing over South Vietnam, an ally he was forced to have as thanks to Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson in a war that was started by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson?

It's about as fucking stupid as the people who bitched about Obama not immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq or even Afghanistan.

[Ashmoria]

oh so that makes it all OK? Nixon makes sure it doesn't happen and because we cant say for sure that it would have that doesn't make him a horrible person who should never have been let near power?

It wasn't going to happen anyway, that's my point. Johnson would not accept a separate peace with North Vietnam, South Vietnam would not accept peace with North Vietnam, so there was going to be no peace with North Vietnam. So your argument, emotionally charged and factually ignorant, is wrong. Hate Nixon for watergate, hate him for his price and wage controls, but for Vietnam? For fuck's sake, to throw so much dislike on the man who did withdraw all troops without completely and totaling screwing over South Vietnam, an ally he was forced to have as thanks to Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson in a war that was started by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson?

It's about as fucking stupid as the people who bitched about Obama not immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq or even Afghanistan.

no
It doesn't matter whether or not it would have happened with Johnson. Nixon made the call to make sure it wouldn't happen. that makes him a fucking traitor to the united states.

[Cosara]

It wasn't going to happen anyway, that's my point. Johnson would not accept a separate peace with North Vietnam, South Vietnam would not accept peace with North Vietnam, so there was going to be no peace with North Vietnam. So your argument, emotionally charged and factually ignorant, is wrong. Hate Nixon for watergate, hate him for his price and wage controls, but for Vietnam? For fuck's sake, to throw so much dislike on the man who did withdraw all troops without completely and totaling screwing over South Vietnam, an ally he was forced to have as thanks to Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson in a war that was started by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson?

It's about as fucking stupid as the people who bitched about Obama not immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq or even Afghanistan.

no
It doesn't matter whether or not it would have happened with Johnson. Nixon made the call to make sure it wouldn't happen. that makes him a fucking traitor to the united states.

Appearently so are religious people who preach their religion while in the Armed Forces. Your point?

[Mike the Progressive]

It wasn't going to happen anyway, that's my point. Johnson would not accept a separate peace with North Vietnam, South Vietnam would not accept peace with North Vietnam, so there was going to be no peace with North Vietnam. So your argument, emotionally charged and factually ignorant, is wrong. Hate Nixon for watergate, hate him for his price and wage controls, but for Vietnam? For fuck's sake, to throw so much dislike on the man who did withdraw all troops without completely and totaling screwing over South Vietnam, an ally he was forced to have as thanks to Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson in a war that was started by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson?

It's about as fucking stupid as the people who bitched about Obama not immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq or even Afghanistan.

no
It doesn't matter whether or not it would have happened with Johnson. Nixon made the call to make sure it wouldn't happen. that makes him a fucking traitor to the united states.

Nixon didn't make any call to make sure it wouldn't happen. It wasn't going to happen anyway. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

So how was Nixon levying war against the United States? Or adhering to our enemies? Giving them aid and comfort?

[Wikkiwallana]

The South Vietnamese were not on board from the gecko

I don't think I would be either. It sounds unsanitary, and possibly perverted.

[New Chalcedon]

oh so that makes it all OK? Nixon makes sure it doesn't happen and because we cant say for sure that it would have that doesn't make him a horrible person who should never have been let near power?

It wasn't going to happen anyway, that's my point. Johnson would not accept a separate peace with North Vietnam, South Vietnam would not accept peace with North Vietnam, so there was going to be no peace with North Vietnam. So your argument, emotionally charged and factually ignorant, is wrong. Hate Nixon for watergate, hate him for his price and wage controls, but for Vietnam? For fuck's sake, to throw so much dislike on the man who did withdraw all troops without completely and totaling screwing over South Vietnam, an ally he was forced to have as thanks to Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson in a war that was started by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson?

It's about as fucking stupid as the people who bitched about Obama not immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq or even Afghanistan.

Your "point" is irrelevant. Nixon wasn't the President when he did this. He wasn't even the President-elect; he had no business going behind Johnson's back to sabotage his negotiations in time of war. Even if you're correct in your (dubious) assertion that the talks would have collapsed anyway, undermining them was an act of treason, in time of war, for personal political gain. It gave the North Vietnamese government - the declared enemy of the United States - considerable comfort, and I find it hard to believe that a man so fundamentally intelligent as Nixon wouldn't know that it would do so - he simply didn't care, so long as he came out ahead.

Richard Nixon was a traitor to his country, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that he was a popular traitor (until his KGB-esque methods of keeping tags on and sabotaging political opponents were found out) who had some halfway decent policy ideas is also not germane; treason is treason. And sabotaging your own President's peace talks for the sake of making him look bad to gain power is treason.

Treason, in this case, that may have cost up to 20,000 young Americans their lives. I'd express a hope that he felt guilt over it, but from what I've seen of him, Richard M. Nixon was too consumed with hatred, ambition and paranoia to feel anything as clean as guilt.

[The Lone Alliance]

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.

Those pictures you saw was him being carried out of the building by people who showed up after the attack ended. People who were not pat of the terror attack.
He died in the Hospital.
Why would they rape and mutilate him and then take him to the hospital?
Provide some evidence proving he was raped and mutilated other than Glenn Beck.

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.

Again you show your extensive lack of knowledge on the situation. Libya as a whole is actually pretty cool with us, I mean what, they hate us for helping them topple Gaddafi? Really is that what you're saying?

"Libya" is grateful for the US... but some factions in Libya aren't so nice.

In East Libya there is the town of Derna. During the Iraqi Insurgency over 52 Libyans from Derna took part in the terrorist attacks against the US in Iraq. 52 were all the ones we knew about, apparently quite a few of them simply went home instead. So maybe 50 to 100 Ex-Al Qaeda members in a city, most of them will obviously not like the US, after all we killed their brothers and sons even though it was their own fault.

There are hard core Islamist militias in Libya, some from the city above and like minded Libyans, others brought in and funded by outside sources such as the Saudi Wahabbists.
They most likely don't like us either because we're standing in their way of putting Libya under their rule.

There is the African branch of Al Qaeda, whom are vaguely related to the branch we fight in the Middle East.
They, of course, also don't like us.

There is also the handful of Gaddafi Loyalists who still remain in isolated pockets in Libya...
I think it's pretty obvious that they wouldn't like us.

But Libya itself. If they hate us so much, why is it that a few days later a massive protest broke out in Benghazi against the Islamists militias which were most likely in on the attacks?

[JuNii]

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.

I posted ar least one news source that stated my claim. So I proved my "some". Please post yor source of this lizard woman claim.

[Torisakia]

Who's Ben Ghazi and why does he need his own thread?

wink

[Ixzara]

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

I posted ar least one news source that stated my claim. So I proved my "some". Please post yor source of this lizard woman claim.

Those damn Reptilians are all over the place, dontchaknow?

[Sibirsky]

They're discussing it on Facebook. Apparently it's old new, and the Obama administration wants to discuss more current events, like Bush policies.

[Zolkaria]

there was a coverup at first in regards to the motivations of the terrorists that attacked the consulate, and for that, fuck obama. however, otherwise, it was a rather mild embassy attack. the kenyan embassy bombing in 1998, Lebanese embassy bombing in 1982 (i may be wrong about the date) and the Iranian embassy attack/hostage situation in 1979 were all far worse, yet the right is making a way bigger deal out of the Benghazi attack than anyone made out of those bombings and attacks.

[Regnum Dominae]

Who's Ben Ghazi and why does he need his own thread?

wink

Fail joke. Try again.

[Cannot think of a name]

They're discussing it on Facebook. Apparently it's old new, and the Obama administration wants to discuss more current events, like Bush policies.

(Image)

It's like they were sitting around and going, "How can we best undermine any idea that this is about concern for the lives that were lost and not in fact a politically motivated act?"