Senate Investigation: Stevens Didn't Have to Die in Benghazi

Now the Senate itself is trying to distract America from Christie's bridge fiasco.

 

"The panel's 85-page report placed blame for the incident first and foremost on armed Islamist militants -- mostly associated with five groups closely tied to core-al Qaeda"

This is interesting and completely 180⁰ from what the Times investigation said a few weeks ago.

Not sure who to believe.

Also very sad that Stevens twice seems to have rejected more security. Just a sad, tragedy.

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.

“I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were” involved in the attack, she told The Hill last week. “That’s my understanding.”
She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack.

“It doesn’t jibe with me,” she said.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...instein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi#ixzz2qWFLNjLR
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

It's strange. The article says, prior to him rejecting security, that he asked for it in the months leading up to the attacks. So did he turn down and then ask for more security or vice versa? What's the time line on these requests, does anyone know?

 

See? This is what I'm talking about.

Feinstein says this: “I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda"

But then she signs a report says this?: "mostly associated with five groups closely tied to core-al Qaeda"

 

Maybe the State Dept didn't have the budget?.

 

I think NPR states it a little better...

If a bunch of white supremacists burned a black church down, would we really care if they're affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan or not? When a bunch of thugs carry out a drive-by shooting, does it matter if they claim any association with crips or bloods??

The point is that there is a strong anti-American/westerner sentiment among these Islamic militants in the region. I'm still baffled that people (read: Republicans) are still splitting hairs over whether the attackers were card-carrying Al Qaida members or not--who cares?? It's such a brazen and empty attempt at manufacturing controversy, and it's embarrassing that our media has driven it along for the "hits"/profit.

 

well at least we're talking about real news instead of the trumped up "scandal" the dims tried to create over a traffic jam.

 

The "dims" among us are right wingers like you who can't accept reality.

When you have to resort to insults, you've lost.

 

I agree he shouldn't have been able to turn down additional security, but he also asked for additional security. So did he ask for it after he rejected it initially?

 

you're correct that whether or not the attackers were directly affiliated with al-queda is peripheral to the scandal, but it's a not unimportant detail. the al-queda connection directly contradicts Obama's triumphalist narrative that "al-queda is on the run." we now know that to be bull**** (see fallujah), and to most of us it was clear in 2012. the administration, including Hillary, covered it up due to the very real impact such info would have had on the election.

There are three primary aspects to the story: First, were the attacks preventable? 2nd, after the attacks began, was help available and not sent? and 3rd, why did the administration go out of its way to blame the attacks on an obscure video?

the answers to #s 1&3 are directly related to the al queda question, and whether we are (were) winning the fight against islamic terrorism, and Obama's reelection prospects. in short, Obama failed to take action, and lied after the fact in an attempt to preserve the narrative and his reelection chances. IOW, for the basest political reasons.

the 2nd is more complicated, but as the senate report makes clear, Obama was told early on that an attack was under way, and went to bed w/o taking action.

what difference does it make? if we ever want a government that doesn't lie to those it represents, and makes good on its commitment to protect and defend its citizens, those responsible should be held accountable.

that includes Obama and Hillary.

 

Ironic that you would be a happy man if all the bull you just typed now turned out to be true. True American you are.

 

Newsflash, it ain't the Dems that want to crash a RINO's rising star. The obstructionist of the 1% will allow no appeasement, no compromise, no cooperation. Anybody that doesn't play along with that narrative will be crushed.

 

This is just beautiful coming from a GWB lover.

 

The conclusion seems to fall in line with what I already thought. State Dept screwed up and didn't provide enough security. I have to agree with hairyme -- it doesn't matter to me whether they were tightly or loosely aligned with AQ, or if they're not associated at all. So far as the War on Terror is concerned, the Benghazi attack was a battle lost, regardless of who the enemy was. It probably matters to the Navy Seals who exactly did what for tactical reasons, but it doesn't matter to me as a citizen and voter. State Dept screwed up and let the terrorists got one over on us.

Basso would like this to be about the cover up, but I don't find it compelling. It might have been a cover up and it might have been fog of war, and I really can't tell which. It doesn't matter to me because it didn't effect my vote. It might say something about Hillary's competence, but I doubt I'll be voting for her anyway. For Obama, I think it's an example of talking too soon, which he has done on other occassions. It's not great, but it's a small sin. I wouldn't blame him for any of the rest of it.

 

I didn't make it about the cover up, Obama did, by blaming it on the video, and having the video director arrested.

don't forget, people died as a result of the cover up.

 

You have no ground to stand on.

 

Sorry, maybe I'm slow today. Who died because of the cover-up?

(And the director was arrested for violating his probation after his conviction for bank fraud. It's not like he's a political prisoner. More like he's an ******* and a con artist. He's out of prison now, by the way. I'm not crying for him.)