That's complete crap. Hillary Clinton ran the State Department in the lead up to Benghazi, during the attack and afterwords. The following information about how the State Department FAILED was determined by a bi-partisan committee (that means Democrats and Republicans alike). From the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Review of the terrorists attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya September 11-12, 2012 That's incompetence at the highest level and because of it, people died. If you want to find any "smearing" it is at the hand of Democrats who are trying as hard as possible to deflect and obfuscate from this scandal and put loyalty to the Democratic party before revealing the WHOLE truth of this matter.
Yeah, this is all about finding the truth. via TPM The soon-to-be-formed select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks will have 7 Republican members and 5 Democratic members, a senior GOP leadership aide confirmed That means Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will reject a request by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that the panel be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats in order to be "fair."
You forgot to include the FACTUAL part of my post. Here, let me help you. Hillary Clinton ran the State Department in the lead up to Benghazi, during the attack and afterwords. The following information about how the State Department FAILED was determined by a bi-partisan committee (that means Democrats and Republicans alike). From the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Review of the terrorists attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya September 11-12, 2012 That's incompetence at the highest level and because of it, people died. If you want to find any "smearing" it is at the hand of Democrats who are trying as hard as possible to deflect and obfuscate from this scandal and put loyalty to the Democratic party before revealing the WHOLE truth of this matter.
The Republicans need to find a better scandal because other than card carrying Fox viewers...... no one really cares about Benghazi.....
I see your problem...you keep making false assumptions about what I am assuming, and not even reading what I write. Typical, but not surprising. Did I ever say they hadn't changed? Just the opposite, in fact. They kept changing, all the time. Big part of the problem. You need to brush up on your command of the English language if you are going to be so condescending towards others. Perhaps you should look at Susan Rice's statements, made consistently and for several weeks afterwards. Which don't conflict with a 'terrorist act' (your words) or 'acts of terror' (Obama's actual words), either, btw. Factcheck.org. He did make a broad reference to acts of terror, without even specifically referring to Benghazi. But then Obama felt that any attack on the embassy was an act of terror. Which I would agree with. But he intentionally did NOT call this a terrorist act. So, in a nutshell, you are just wrong on this. But that isn't even the issue. The issue is what type of attack occurred. Was it the spontaneous reaction from a crowd gathered to demonstrate against the videos, as the administration tried to put forward? No. There wasn't even a crowd, or a demonstration. Obama also made reference to these videos in that Rose Garden speech: ...thus planting the seeds for the narrative. Me either, and I have seen reports that they tasked a Predator drone. Which would be appropriate. Although there was a lot of confusion and misstatements made after the attack, leading to concerns that something could have been done but wasn't, it does seem that they did what they could at the time. What they aren't saying (well, General Ham finally did), but probably also weighed heavily into their decisions, is that they didn't expect the attack to last so long, or be multi-pronged. Again, understandable, but just say so. Why wouldn't they say so? Because it opens them back up to criticisms that they could have done something but didn't. It was just a spontaneous attack by a small mob upset over a video, right? And you will do likewise? That seems to be true. But it is NOT what they said at the time. Or even quite some time afterwards. Panetta stuck with just not having enough information to do anything. First...how could their leaders think otherwise, when that was the very purpose they were created for? Second...the leader's thought otherwise, based on what? They were transfered to being under the control of Ham, who didn't realize he had assets he could have deployed. So, yes, they weren't deployed, but who is it you are saying 'thought otherwise'? That is true. But you aren't the only one reading the post. Politics and spin should cease, in my mind, when it involves lying about an attack on the United States. Or at least cease to be a valid and acceptable excuse. Perhaps more bothersome, though, was the press' inability (unwillingness) to expose the lie for what it was. That would have forced the administration to have to answer some tough questions, which is good, and also helped to prevent future occurrences of the same, from any President. Did they? There are numerous reports of generals who were very upset that no response was given. Even the JCOS admitted, as I posted earlier, that they had a rapid response unit available. That they weren't deployed seems to have been a matter of confusion...but that confusion was created because the control of that unit was transferred that very night. Why? That might actually have been a good decision, but poorly executed, as the person they transferred it to (Ham) wasn't aware that he had that unit at his disposal. Nor, it seems, can anyone find out why control was transferred. Certainly worth investigating...and correcting. He was AFRICOM, so how on earth was he not privy to the facts under consideration at the time? And yet you can't be bothered pointing out how? Then why were they so vociferous that they had no information, and why put forward the known false narrative? Again, which commanders? Because their actual commander sounds like he would have deployed them. And you're not the least bit curious about that? Really? I'm not saying this is a smoking gun or anything...it might have actually been a good decision, just poorly communicated. But then who made the decision? Why? Certainly questions worth knowing the answer to. Are you serious? A single casual conversation, about an attack on the United States, where the President doesn't even inquire as to whether any assets are available to assist and no other conversations after that constitutes 'engaged' for you? Wow. It would seem he also talked with Clinton, but we don't know about what. Ok, so now we have TWO whole short conversations that he was involved in, during an attack on the United States. And you consider that 'engaged'. You have much lower standards for your President than I do. That's twice you've repeated this, and it is false both times. And if you don't think there was a narrative, you're either not paying any attention, or you are the one who is delusional. Susan Rice didn't make, and continue to make, all those false statements on her own (if she had, she would have been fired, and rightly so). Nor did she write the memos showing the creation of the narrative. As the Accountability Review Board found, there were at least 20 security incidents involving the Temporary Mission Facility, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and third-country nationals and diplomats in the Benghazi area in the months leading up to the September 11, 20 12, attacks. Ahh, and you know this because of your extensive knowledge and study of me, of course? Because otherwise, you're just pulling it out of your arse. FWIW, I defend Obama where appropriate. I had no problem with his policies in Iraq and Aghanistan. Thought he made a good call taking out UBL. Disagreed with his stance initially on Libya (letting Europe take the lead), then said it looked like the right move. Hardly what one would call 'tarring and feathering'. Further, I called the Bush administration out on their similar lies about what went down at Abu Ghirab, too. Because what they said about it clearly made no sense, either. So, maybe you should stop with the renal extraction of what you think you know about me? First, when it becomes worth caring what you think about me, I'll be sure and let you know. Second, who said I couldn't understand it? That is, in fact, my whole point. And the problem is that we let them get away with it. It's bad enough when it's just regular politics, but isn't lying about an attack on the United States crossing a line? I think so. Clearly, many do not, or they just don't think about it. That's ok---but it is also just exactly what politicians count on. They're not stupid...they have just learned that the American voter can be lied to at will, with no repurcussions. That offends me. Apparently, it's just fine with you, and you see no point in even bringing it up. FWIW, it's right there in that report you keep harping on me for not reading: 20! In just the few months prior to this attack. No, no reason for any concern there....
It's probably better that they stick to this for a while ... at least until after midterm elections. This issue and Obamacare.
yes please They both have been settled with the voters (the GOP lost) but let's continue to debate them.
About halfway through a detailed post in response, I realized that you're so desperate for there to be an actual scandal that I should just continue to let you rant. Please continue, it can only help the GOP's cause in the midterm elections. Biased partisans will be biased after all.
Bottom line is that the white house initially referred to it as terrorism. They also mentioned it as response to the video. They did both. Before long they settled on terrorism. What a horrific scandal
Damn, when the king of masochism gives up on you - you know you've really done something special. Congrats! Photograph of BigDog's study where he investigates Benghazi: Spoiler
Yet..... no one cares, other than hardcore Foxophiles... that were not going to vote for Hilary Clinton or President Obama anyway...... The amount of collective eye rolls is amazing.
Gowdy shaming the media <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/A1jeJmeeMjs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Kochs can pay for as much media attention as they want, for as long as they want. This thread will be open till 2016.
That's the point. Bengahazi, err kenyan birth cert, err gov't shutdown, err insert faux scandal.. it's all about 2016. The real question is can the GOP sustain their faux outrage for 2 MORE YEARS, 2 MORE YEARS.. HOORAY
Anyone who doesn't understand that this is about the 2016 election is politically naive. If you don't realize this reality, and remain hoodwinked, then I applaud your misguided desire for seeking resolution to an already determined outcome. Kind of like the JFK conspiracy enthusiasts. We all know they're digging a dry well but they're still going strong some 50+ years on.
