It's already proven. Read emails, listen to the testimony, read the article by Hayes that quotes the emails. The statements that were made that blaming the video reflected the best information they had at the time is a flat out lie.
The truth is that Barack Obama is the greatest president that has ever lived and if he failed in his re-election bid the country would have collapsed into the ocean and we'd all be dead now. Therefore, anything they did to get re-elected was good and anyone who questions it is a political hack who hates America.
Truther. --------------------- Inaction and Deception ADVANCE EDITORIAL from our May 20th Issue. William Kristol May 20, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 34 One of the many interesting subplots of the Benghazi saga involves the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, which was asked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review State Department decisions before, during, and after the spontaneous demonstration—oops, terrorist attack—on the night of September 11, 2012. The board managed to conduct a review in which it chose not to interview several key figures in the Benghazi decision-making process, including—to take two rather obvious examples of people whom you’d think a review board might want to talk to—Secretary Clinton and Mark Thompson, the senior counterterrorism official at State. Thompson even volunteered to meet with the board, which decided not to take him up on the offer. Having failed thoroughly to review what happened, the board produced a report that was somewhere between radically incomplete and positively misleading. It also—no surprise—failed to hold any high-ranking political appointees accountable for anything, while assigning culpability to four midlevel career civil servants. The board’s performance was so egregious that it’s now being investigated by the State Department Inspector General. The White House doesn’t have an inspector general, so there will be no investigation of the White House-led interagency Atrocities Prevention Board announced last year with much hoopla by President Obama. The board was established pursuant to his “Presidential Study Directive 10” of August 4, 2011. Who knew there was such a thing as a “Presidential Study Directive”? But if our nanny-state president constitutes, as Tocqueville put it, “a unique power, tutelary, all powerful, but elected by citizens . . . [who] console themselves for being in tutelage by thinking that they themselves have chosen their schoolmasters,” we suppose it’s fitting that the president issue study directives. But this study directive wasn’t just about more study. It called for action: Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. Our security is affected when masses of civilians are slaughtered, refugees flow across borders, and murderers wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods. America’s reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide. Unfortunately, history has taught us that our pursuit of a world where states do not systematically slaughter civilians will not come to fruition without concerted and coordinated effort. Unfortunately, the only concerted and coordinated effort the Obama administration has made to prevent atrocities in, say, Syria, has been . . . to set up the Atrocities Prevention Board. And the existence of said board seems to have had no effect in getting the U.S. government, or anyone else, to act to prevent atrocities in Syria or elsewhere. This is the administration’s foreign policy modus operandi: Obama’s Accountability Review Board fails to hold any Obama appointee accountable, and Obama’s Atrocities Prevention Board fails to prevent atrocities. The president ducks responsibility for the actions of his officials even as he ducks responsibility for what’s happening in the world. In other words, Obama’s foreign policy apparatus does what you’d expect, given the premises of his pretend-to-lead-from-behind-but-in-fact-don’t-lead-at-all foreign policy. Fortunately, Congress isn’t bound by Obama’s study directives or the findings of his administration’s review boards. Obama administration appointees can be held accountable by elected officials in Congress exercising their investigative and oversight responsibilities. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee got off to a good start with its Benghazi hearings. But it was only a start. It’s now up to Congress to move ahead with the many tools at its disposal to insist on the truth about the failures and the subsequent cover-up of Benghazi. And it’s also up to Congress to try to spur into action a president who would much rather talk about preventing atrocities than do something to prevent them. After all, as President Obama said in justifying the use of military force in his Nobel Peace Prize address, “Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.” Inaction abroad and deception at home. The Obama administration should be the subject of a study directive to ensure we never sink so low again.
The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearings this week there are renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi. Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation -- turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins. So I thought I'd revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher -- especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they're so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe." The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed. June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51. October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities. February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed. May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb. July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people. December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed. March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.) September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded. January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities. March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two. July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed. September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months. 2013-05-09-benghazi_gate_bush_era_320.jpgA few observations about this timeline. My initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, my list above doesn't include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war -- a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel. Speaking of Graham, I ran a search on each attack along with the name "Lindsey Graham" in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn't prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn't exhaustive enough. But one thing's for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases -- no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way. This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn't the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn't he provide additional security? Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana'a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn't even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes? Just once I'd like to hear David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once. Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could've been raised about the Bush-era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm's way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years). So we're only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president's second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horse**** -- a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth. Ultimately, they don't even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value -- not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of "truth" proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they'll keep repeating "Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!" without any regard for history or reality. Like always.
Raymond Maxwell: Former Deputy Asst Secretary Removed Over Benghazi Pens a Poem Invitation – Posted on April 1, 2013 © Raymond Maxwell The Queen’s Henchmen request the pleasure of your company at a Lynching – to be held at 23rd and C Streets NW on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 just past sunset. Dress: Formal, Masks and Hoods - the four being lynched must never know the identities of their executioners, or what/ whose sin required their sacrifice. A blood sacrifice – to divert the hounds - to appease the gods - to cleanse our filth and satisfy our guilty consciences. Arrive promptly at sunset – injustice will be swift. there will be no trial, no review of evidence, no due process, and no accountability. Dress warmly - a chilling effect will instantly envelop Foggy Bottom. Extrajudicial. Total impunity. A kangaroo court in a banana republic. B.Y.O.B. Refreshments will not be served because of the continuing resolution. And the ones being lynched? Who cares? They are pawns in a game. Our game. All suckers, all fools, all knaves who volunteered to serve - Us. And the truth? The truth? What difference at this point does it make? In the event of inclement weather, or the Queen’s incapacitation, her Henchmen will carry out this lynching - as ordered, as planned.
Reports are coming out this is about collecting arms from Libyan rebels, feeding collected arms to Syria via Turkey... clandestinely through the embassy. It's looking like Iran / Contra affair but worse. It will be interesting to see where this goes.. It also looks like MSM is being forced to report on the story now. Geraldo Rivera: My Sources Tell Me Benghazi Was About Running Missiles to Syria Rebels
LOL! What have I admitted defeat too lil't? That I'm not going to waste my time with the crazy? And what have you won?
I agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy among the Congressional Republicans and etc. investigating Benghazi but that doesn't mean that this situation shouldn't be looked into further. Everything that is coming out points to either a coverup or severe incompetence on the part of the State Dept., CIA, and military. Neither of those are things that should just be ignored because the ones beating the drum over this issue are political opponents and hypocrites.
Agreed. If we are only to care about things that are presented by politicians that are not hypocrites and that do not seek their own gain over all else, then we really can't care about anything that any of them say or do. I have no illusions about the motives of the Republicans in this. However, as long as the truth is the endgame the motives of the players is only relevant when it comes time to vote for them again.
The main incompetence, with the benefit of hindsight was actually cutting the security in the first place/lack of preventive measures; expecting the CIA/DoD to have detailed rescue plans & available personnel for any possible contingency that can be executed in real time with 911-call-type response times and Delta Force supercommandos with perfect intel is generally not a realistic expectation The hearings of course aren't about that though, they're about "Meet the Press" and the big scary cover-up which cost Romney the election, lol.
That is part of the story but that still doesn't answer why the Admin. stuck with the story that this was due to the YouTube video for so long. It doesn't answer how much of a potential threat to the Consulate might've been known to be out there. Yes, that is probably the biggest reason for these hearings but still doesn't mean that the issue shouldn't be further investigated.
TRANSPARENCY: WH HOLDS BENGHAZI BRIEFING ... OFF-THE-RECORD In the White House’s latest efforts at transparency, the administration announced to reporters that it would brief reporters on the latest shocking developments about the Benghazi situation … behind closed doors. Politico reports that the meeting started at approximately 12:45 PM ET, and that it moved the normal press briefing to 1:45 PM ET. Jay Carney, White House press secretary, did not comment on whether the meeting took place. Politico reports: The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi. The administration routinely exerts pressure on reporters it feels are not kind enough in their coverage. Reporters like Cheryl Attkisson of CBS News have felt the hand of their bosses for “wading dangerously close to advocacy” with regard to Benghazi. No doubt this “off-the-record” meeting was designed to get all the president’s horses and all the president’s men to put the Benghazi humpty dumpty together again. UPDATE: Reporters not invited to the off-the-record briefing are reportedly incredibly unhappy about it: UPDATE II: Jake Tapper of CNN reports that the regularly scheduled press briefing has been delayed even further:
Here is the problem... Their motivation is political. You agree with that. Wouldn't that mean that they are going to use selection bias to FORCE the outcome they are looking for(Obama was the mastermind in a conspiracy to let 4 U.S. ambassadors die and covered it up for political reasons)
Pro tip Bob, using Breitbart as your source really isn't good form. Let's leave that to the bassos of the world.
