Benghazi Report- a clusterfuck
- Thread starter RJKarl
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,398
- Reaction score
- 6,565
The initial spin is the only thing about this that has ever really bothered me. It seemed so blatantly obvious that the administration was doing everything they could to avoid the appearance of a terrorist attack so close to the election.
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
Pretty clear they wanted to delay her testimony indefinitely, or at least as long as they could, so they could get their shit straight. SOP for the Clintons.
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
RJ, you lecturing me on black helicopters truly is amusing. The Clintons have only been in the public eye for 22 years now. I think their modus operandi is pretty well established at this point to anybody who really cares to look.
Too bad nobody could be bothered to muster any air support for the four people killed in Benghazi.
Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,413
- Reaction score
- 1,376
This is really what bothered me from the get go as well. Its obvious to anyone that huge mistakes were made. What baffled me is that the narrative was so counter to the rest of the worlds intelligence (and apparently our own) yet, the media (and especially Candi) ran with Obama's story as if it were gospel. Just bothered the heck out of me to see blatant propaganda out there. Kind of a 'Mission Accomplished' sort of moment. I began to understand in full the the frustration of enduring W's presidency as a Democrat. Blatant misrepresentation of the truth followed up with hubris and more misleading 'facts'.
The "budget cut" BS is just that. The people on the ground asked for increased support, but were denied by the State Dept because of diplomatic concerns. They wanted to make nice with the locals.
The budget cuts that Rj alludes to were not scheduled to take affect until this fiscal year.
"A State Department official told The Washington Post that there was no impact on security in Benghazi from the cuts."
And does anyone really think that if we thought our sovereign territory was going to be attacked, that budgetary concerns would win the day? For the love of Pete, budgetary concerns don't even win the day when we want to reduce the 4 years people have been on unemployment!
The budget cuts that Rj alludes to were not scheduled to take affect until this fiscal year.
"A State Department official told The Washington Post that there was no impact on security in Benghazi from the cuts."
And does anyone really think that if we thought our sovereign territory was going to be attacked, that budgetary concerns would win the day? For the love of Pete, budgetary concerns don't even win the day when we want to reduce the 4 years people have been on unemployment!
Comparing Benghazi to "Mission accomplished" is insane. THOUSANDS more heroic GIs DIED after "Mission Accomplished". TENS OF THOUSANDS were injured after "Mission Accomplished".
There have been MULTIPLE studies and NONE show Obama had ANYTHING to do with the statements by Susan Rice.
There have been MULTIPLE studies and NONE show Obama had ANYTHING to do with the statements by Susan Rice.
DeacMan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reaction score
- 948
Yeah, only in this instance it goes beyond one instance into a whole host of matters. Spying on us, spying on foreign leaders, spying on the press, running guns to drug cartels and then failing to track them, failing to get proper benefits to our veterans, not being able to build a friggin' web site and then refusing to provide real data about it, Benghazi, using the IRS as a political weapon. The list just goes on and on and on with this administration. And you can tell the true shrills because they'd have their panties in a great big soiled ball had ANY of these things happened under the prior administration but somehow when the guy who promised to be so incredibly different does them it's all good.
DeacMan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reaction score
- 948
Ummm, hmmm. I wonder who ran this "multiple studies". Were they commissioned like Simpson-Bowles?
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
So what do you want to see happen?
PS - I don't know how you can say with a straight face that failing to get proper benefits to our veterans is Obama's fault. Seriously, it's fucking one of the dumbest claims I've ever seen on this board.
Actually this entire post is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on any board.
If any of these things happened under the prior administration....are you fucking kidding?
Last edited:
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
BLAME BLAME BLAME
Benghazi notwithstanding, more funding for the Foreign Service in general should be a big priority no matter where your party loyalties lie. GOP administrations tend to be friendlier with the purse strings in that regard, at least in the modern era, although Hillary could reverse that trend due to her time with State.
Once again the part in red has been PROVEN by UNDER OATH testimony to Issa's committee that this didn't happen.
As usual you simply suck up all the lies the RW talkingheads tell you must be believed regardless of the evidence.
One was -the Accountability Review Board which was bi-partisan and blamed lots of people
The NYT did an 8000 word story that took months. Rather than say, "it's the NYT" PROVE it's false. My bad you don't have to do that. Just whine and scream like you always do.
This one? The one that didn't even interview Clinton? The one her Dept appointed 80% of the membership of? That one? You're hanging your hat on that?
The House Oversight Committee report questions the ARB's practice of deciding not to record its interviews and instead taking less reliable handwritten notes. It noted the ARB did not conduct in depth interviews with senior officials who some believed, and email documents indicate, had direct responsibility for decisions related to the poor security posture in Benghazi. It also questioned why the ARB decided not to interview senior officials including Secretary Clinton and two Deputy Secretaries of State Thomas Nides and William Burns. In a closed-door interview conducted to prepare for this week's hearing, Admiral Mullen told the committee "it was a universal consensus over time that we did the interviews we needed to do and that we didn't do the interviews we didn't need to do, which would have included the ones obviously that we didn't do, which were Nides and Burns and Secretary Clinton."
The House Oversight Committee report suggests there may be a conflict of interest in having the ARB rely so heavily on the State Department that it's investigating for staff and resources. For example, Under Secretary Kennedy supervised the selection of the Benghazi ARB staff; and the State Department appointed four of the five members of the Board.
---
Her so-called exoneration comes at the hands of a board she hand-picked and didn't interview her. That's your evidence?
You don't have the slightest intention to know the truth. That's your right, but just be aware how feverishly you are lying to yourself. They got caught unprepared on the ground in Libya, tried to lie about it on the eve of an election and got caught.
To answer the OP, an accurate entry of what happened onto the ledger of the people in charge is important, especially when those people start asking for the public's trust again (to the delight of their fellow frauds, like a certain Orange County-based poster).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,398
- Reaction score
- 6,565
Yep.
Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,413
- Reaction score
- 1,376
I really just wanted the people responsible (mainly Obama and Clinton) to eat a full serving of the BS they fed the American public. We made huge errors, and then the admin lied about it (in my opinion based on the evidence I have seen), but it isn't as though Benghazi is some impeachable offense unless someone lied under oath (which I am not aware of happening). It was politics as usual from a president who ran his first campaign on being different. It all went down during an election where he was spouting the same BS while lying out of the other side of his mouth. It was more evidence to me that Obama was just another guy hungry to protect himself rather than lead, which was disappointing.
His presidency has been a huge letdown. He won the 2008 primary against Hillary because he convinced the Democratic party that he was a different politician. That he could rise above the usual political power games that are only about protecting oneself. An empty suit would have beaten McCain, but he ran and sold himself as something different than Bush. When you look back at Obama's presidency, it is almost a mirror image of Bush. Who knows what will happen in 2016, but I would give better than 50/50 odds that Republicans between now and then. By the time Obama is done he will have evened the scorecard with the Bush presidency which no one would have dared dreamed to say 5 years ago. He is a charlatan. Benghazi just revealed who he is.
Clinton is no charlatan...everyone knows what she is about. It is no coincidence that she resigned at the first possible moment she could. The last thing Hillary wanted was to be answering questions about Benghazi during her prep time for 2016. It will certainly be interesting to see how the Republicans handle the Benghazi situation with Hillary. Mitt completely wet the bed during that debate, and allowed Candi and Obama to team up and bully him. Pubs better have a strong plan, because you know Hillary is preparing to neutralize this issue at all costs. It is her largest stumbling block in my opinion.
ONW - would like to hear your thoughts on the situation. You say you are conflicted...explain the conflict.