Benghazi hearing?

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
Somehow, I'd think somebody, somewhere would think "Y'know this country that just went through a violent rebellion? Maybe we should have security there with our guys."

Then, in this hypothetical, said somebody would go to superiors and advise them to have security there with the guys. Or failing that, to not have the guys there.

Hypothetically, seeing the good sense this made, said somebody's superiors would then take said advice.

We are left with odd choices here. Either these hypotheticals happened, in which case said somebody's superiors were being idiots of the highest caliber, or the hypothetical didn't happen and we now know that every single person in the Libya section and their superiors at the state Department couldn't find their way out of their own ass with a map, lighter, compass and GPS device.

It's a libertarians wet-dream. Either somebody high in government screwed the pooch royally, or there's clear evidence of everyone in governmnet being ridiculously stupid.

But we already know who screwed the pooch: the congresspeople who wrote the budget that cut funding for security for diplomatic stations, and those who voted for those cuts.

"Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel" (Five House Committee)

Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," (State Department Accountability Board)

"there was a high risk of a 'significant' terrorist attack on U.S. employees and facilities in Benghazi in the months before the September 11, 2012, assault on the Mission, and the State Department failed to take adequate steps to reduce the Mission’s vulnerability." (Senate Commitee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs)

It seems that funding isn't really included in there.
Even if we do blame funding...Are you suggesting the State Department is too stupid to budget more money for hostile locations than friendly ones? Are they all so stupid they can't say "Hmm, let's have more security personnel in Libya and less in Europe."? Or failing that, are they so stupid as to say "We don't have enough security to do this but let's do it anyways. What could possibly go wrong?"

[Arkinesia]

You strongly implied that I called this a conspiracy or a cover-up, when I clearly did no such thing. Are you going to admit that you strawmanned me worse than a goddamn TEAbagger, or are you going to keep playing your bullshit game?

Since you've obviously got veins throbbing at your temples, I'll revise my post to exclude you specifically.

Yet this still misses the point.

We knew at the time, or at least had every reason to believe, that Benghazi was unsafe. So why did we continue to operate the mission there? I mean, it could have just been shut down until the Republicans got the stick out of their asses.

[Farnhamia]

Since you've obviously got veins throbbing at your temples, I'll revise my post to exclude you specifically.

Yet this still misses the point.

We knew at the time, or at least had every reason to believe, that Benghazi was unsafe. So why did we continue to operate the mission there? I mean, it could have just been shut down until the Republicans got the stick out of their asses.

Yes, it could have. The mission in Benghazi had been the de facto embassy to the rebels, however, the people we supported in the Libyan revolution. Ambassador Stevens first arrived in the country at Benghazi, coming in on a freighter. He knew that the area was dangerous last September but he went anyway, though I can't find a report of why. From the little I know about him, he was the sort of man who would not have been dissuaded from going if he thought it necessary.

[Grave_n_idle]

Since you've obviously got veins throbbing at your temples, I'll revise my post to exclude you specifically.

Yet this still misses the point.

We knew at the time, or at least had every reason to believe, that Benghazi was unsafe. So why did we continue to operate the mission there?

Because sometimes, that's how diplomacy is done.

[Alien Space Bats]

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.

Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation. He was not harmed in any other way, nor was his body defiled after his death. Stories of him having been raped and mutilated are right-wing propaganda intended to further sensationalize what happened.

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation. He was not harmed in any other way, nor was his body defiled after his death. Stories of him having been raped and mutilated are right-wing propaganda intended to further sensationalize what happened.

You mean they're not genuinely pressing this in honor of his memory and his father's feelings? You mean they were told to stop making this a circus by Stevens' family among others?

[SaintB]

Its a dog and pony show, they plan on wrapping the whole thing up by calling for the 40th attempt to overturn the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The same party that keeps calling for less government spending has been spending the Congressional budget on bullshit like this.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation. He was not harmed in any other way, nor was his body defiled after his death. Stories of him having been raped and mutilated are right-wing propaganda intended to further sensationalize what happened.

Oh, what a difference having a Democratic President makes.

This is what the Republicans in Congress would have done if Benghazi had happened under a Republican President.

[New Chalcedon]

Its a dog and pony show, they plan on wrapping the whole thing up by calling for the 40th attempt to overturn the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The same party that keeps calling for less government spending has been spending the Congressional budget on bullshit like this.

What better way to prove that the government wastes metric fucktons of money, than by doing it one's own self?

[SaintB]

Its a dog and pony show, they plan on wrapping the whole thing up by calling for the 40th attempt to overturn the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The same party that keeps calling for less government spending has been spending the Congressional budget on bullshit like this.

What better way to prove that the government wastes metric fucktons of money, than by doing it one's own self?

Run on the platform that the government can't do anything right and then prove it by deliberately doing it wrong. It convinces about half the country to my never ending embarrassment.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation. He was not harmed in any other way, nor was his body defiled after his death. Stories of him having been raped and mutilated are right-wing propaganda intended to further sensationalize what happened.

Oh, what a difference having a Democratic President makes.

This is what the Republicans in Congress would have done if Benghazi had happened under a Republican President.

We already know what would have happened - there were ten separate 'diplomat' attacks, totaling 60 deaths, over 6 years between 2002 and 2008 - and the GOP did bugger all.

It's entirely partisan, and entirely fake.

[Mike the Progressive]

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.

If you apply a very liberal definition of the word treason, I could see an argument being made. However, I don't think what Nixon did was treason. Perhaps the characteristics of an asshole, sure. But traitor? No.

It's not like he contacted the North Vietnamese. He contacted the South Vietnamese, an ally. How did prolonging a war against North Vietnam that ultimately lead to the increased bombing of North Vietnam, the HCM trail and a escalation of ground troops "comfort" the enemy?

I agree treason is treason, which is why I don't think this is it. Again, I'm not sure how contacting an American ally is treason. Delaying peace didn't "comfort" the enemy, it didn't "aid" them. I'm sure there was a crime being committed here, I just don't think it was treason.

[Gauthier]

Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation. He was not harmed in any other way, nor was his body defiled after his death. Stories of him having been raped and mutilated are right-wing propaganda intended to further sensationalize what happened.

You mean they're not genuinely pressing this in honor of his memory and his father's feelings? You mean they were told to stop making this a circus by Stevens' family among others?

Republicans making a circus out of a tragic death in the line of duty is nothing new. Ask the Tillman family.

[Gauthier]

Its a dog and pony show, they plan on wrapping the whole thing up by calling for the 40th attempt to overturn the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The same party that keeps calling for less government spending has been spending the Congressional budget on bullshit like this.

What better way to prove that the government wastes metric fucktons of money, than by doing it one's own self?

"Government doesn't work, and I want you to vote me in to prove it."

[New Chalcedon]

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.

If you apply a very liberal definition of the word treason, I could see an argument being made. However, I don't think what Nixon did was treason. Perhaps the characteristics of an asshole, sure. But traitor? No.

It's not like he contacted the North Vietnamese. He contacted the South Vietnamese, an ally. How did prolonging a war against North Vietnam that ultimately lead to the increased bombing of North Vietnam, the HCM trail and a escalation of ground troops "comfort" the enemy?

Because the North Vietnamese ultimately won it. And Johnson was increasingly confident that they would, which is why he wanted to negotiate for peace in the first place! Nixon knew that they'd win, too - which is why he wanted the troops out quick-smart.

I agree treason is treason, which is why I don't think this is it. Again, I'm not sure how contacting an American ally is treason. Delaying peace didn't "comfort" the enemy, it didn't "aid" them. I'm sure there was a crime being committed here, I just don't think it was treason.

Alright then. I'll give you a scenario:

It's June 2008, and Bush has come to his senses. Realising that the War on Terror cannot be won due to the asymmetric nature of the conflict and the constraints that the USA and its allies must observe, he invites the senior leadership of Al-Qaeda and a variety of other groups to meet with representatives from the USA and its allies to discuss what levels of US/Western involvement in the Middle East are acceptable and unacceptable to these groups. In short, to come to a mutually-livable peace arrangement.

Senator Barack Obama, knowing that public disgust with the "War on Terror" is the single biggest factor which will push him to victory in November, knows that if these talks succeed, he's finished. The popularity of a peace agreement ending an unpopular war will greatly benefit Bush's designated successor (Sen. John McCain, Obama's opponent) and he'll be left with little argument for a "change of leadership". But he has a friend in the upper echelons of the UK Government, someone who holds the confidence of British PM Tony Blair.

Obama gets on the phone to that friend, who we'll call "David" - this is more or less how the conversation would go.

*background conversation - asking about wives & kids, catching up, etc.*
O: David, I take it you've heard about the peace talks.
D: I certainly have. They're an excellent idea - we've spent billions of pounds and hundreds of lives, and we're nowhere near even seeing what "victory" is, much less achieving it.
O: I agree on general principle. But do you think that Bush can negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag?
D: Well, now that you mention it.....I do have some concerns about it.
O: And are you alone?
D: No - the Cabinet's not entirely impressed with his choices for the negotiating team, either.
O: Just be aware - you'll get a better deal out of me than you'll ever get out of Bush.
*conversation turns to social chitchat*

Two weeks and a few more phone conversations (perhaps through a cutout for the details) later, the British delegation makes demands that outrage the various opposing negotiators, and they walk out, ending the peace talks. Bush has egg all over his face, and the election proceeds as normal. Obama wins an election that was otherwise in doubt, but at the expense of having US soldiers still dying all across the theater of war, and an inflamed and emboldened enemy that he must now deal with as President.

In this scenario, has Obama committed treason despite never talking to Al-Qaeda? I'd say yes. You need not contact an enemy to give them aid and comfort, and Nixon knew that.

[Alien Space Bats]

Oh, what a difference having a Democratic President makes.

This is what the Republicans in Congress would have done if Benghazi had happened under a Republican President.

Can you imagine what would be going on in Washington if something like this were to happen under a Democratic President:

[New Chalcedon]

Oh, what a difference having a Democratic President makes.

This is what the Republicans in Congress would have done if Benghazi had happened under a Republican President.

Can you imagine what would be going on in Washington if something like this were to happen under a Democratic President:

The howls for impeachment would drown out all other news.

Oh, wait - that's exactly what the GOP politicians are trying to do now. It seems that I've finally stumbled upon what the Republican Party considers an impeachable offense by a Democratic President: breathing when something bad happens anywhere in the world.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Can you imagine what would be going on in Washington if something like this were to happen under a Democratic President:

The howls for impeachment would drown out all other news.

Oh, wait - that's exactly what the GOP politicians are trying to do now. It seems that I've finally stumbled upon what the Republican Party considers an impeachable offense by a Democratic President: breathing when something bad happens anywhere in the world.

It probably has more to do with poor-handling/lying (depending on your political persuasion) than breathing.

[Grave_n_idle]

The howls for impeachment would drown out all other news.

Oh, wait - that's exactly what the GOP politicians are trying to do now. It seems that I've finally stumbled upon what the Republican Party considers an impeachable offense by a Democratic President: breathing when something bad happens anywhere in the world.

It probably has more to do with poor-handling/lying (depending on your political persuasion) than breathing.

It doesn't.

As I pointed out, at some length, earlier - under the last Republican President, in a term and a half - 60 dead in 10 separate diplomatic-targeted attacks.

It's nothing to do with poor handling or lying - it's absolutely objectively about Republican politicians and their pet media creating a scandal out of something that didn't even raise their eyebrows when it was a Republican President.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It probably has more to do with poor-handling/lying (depending on your political persuasion) than breathing.

It doesn't.

As I pointed out, at some length, earlier - under the last Republican President, in a term and a half - 60 dead in 10 separate diplomatic-targeted attacks.

It's nothing to do with poor handling or lying - it's absolutely objectively about Republican politicians and their pet media creating a scandal out of something that didn't even raise their eyebrows when it was a Republican President.

Presumably those previous attacks didn't see Bush or his State Department blaming a youtube video for the violence that occurred (Or perceived as doing such).

[New Chalcedon]

It probably has more to do with poor-handling/lying (depending on your political persuasion) than breathing.

It doesn't.

As I pointed out, at some length, earlier - under the last Republican President, in a term and a half - 60 dead in 10 separate diplomatic-targeted attacks.

It's nothing to do with poor handling or lying - it's absolutely objectively about Republican politicians and their pet media creating a scandal out of something that didn't even raise their eyebrows when it was a Republican President.

This (credit to Jen Sorensen) seems appropriate, when it comes to describing the memory of the media:

[New Chalcedon]

It doesn't.

As I pointed out, at some length, earlier - under the last Republican President, in a term and a half - 60 dead in 10 separate diplomatic-targeted attacks.

It's nothing to do with poor handling or lying - it's absolutely objectively about Republican politicians and their pet media creating a scandal out of something that didn't even raise their eyebrows when it was a Republican President.

Presumably those previous attacks didn't see Bush or his State Department blaming a youtube video for the violence that occurred (Or perceived as doing such).

No, they just blamed all of Islam, only agreed to testify if it wasn't under oath and claimed that the Vice-President 's office was a secret, fourth branch of government.

Clearly superior to any unbiased mindset.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Presumably those previous attacks didn't see Bush or his State Department blaming a youtube video for the violence that occurred (Or perceived as doing such).

No, they just blamed all of Islam, only agreed to testify if it wasn't under oath and claimed that the Vice-President 's office was a secret, fourth branch of government.

Clearly superior to any unbiased mindset.

"He was worse!" is a defense now...how, exactly?

[SaintB]

No, they just blamed all of Islam, only agreed to testify if it wasn't under oath and claimed that the Vice-President 's office was a secret, fourth branch of government.

Clearly superior to any unbiased mindset.

"He was worse!" is a defense now...how, exactly?

By deflecting attention away from the original culprit.

[Grave_n_idle]

It doesn't.

As I pointed out, at some length, earlier - under the last Republican President, in a term and a half - 60 dead in 10 separate diplomatic-targeted attacks.

It's nothing to do with poor handling or lying - it's absolutely objectively about Republican politicians and their pet media creating a scandal out of something that didn't even raise their eyebrows when it was a Republican President.

Presumably those previous attacks didn't see Bush or his State Department blaming a youtube video for the violence that occurred (Or perceived as doing such).

So it's not the murder of our embassy staff that's the scandal. It's not the deaths?

It's more important that it wasn't immediately and unequivocally laid at the feet of a terrorist group (thus giving terrorists the one thing they crave most - attention)... than that 4 embassy/consulate/diplomatic people died. And 60 - that's a 6 and a 0 - in the same amount of time under the previous Presidency.

No - the scandal is partisan bullshit. And those pretending it's a scandal are hypocritical liars, or the pawns of hypocritical liars.