I get it. You don't care why tactical teams were told to stand down therefore leaving 4 Americans to die. You don't care why the White House said otherwise. You don't care why the White House told witnesses not to talk to Congress. You don't care why Susan Rice told Americans it was caused by a Youtube video when she (or at least the state department) clearly knew otherwise. You are just so cool that you don't care about anything. Grow up and don't speak for others. What?
nice way to twist words around. I didn't read anything in his post that would infer that. I doubt they wanted anyone to die.. regardless it happened and believe they would do whatever they could to cover it up. As evidence by them trying to blame a youtube video instead of their own ineptness... then let MSM roll with it.. which they did.
Do you really want to compare the coverup of a burglary to the coverup of, apparently, several decisions to not render aid to an American ambassador and those who serve him who are under attack? and then to trot out a series of vacuous lies about the event and the causes thereof? Tell us...
Yet.....there is no proof of a cover up. Bad decisions...yes. Susan Rice was given bad talking points. Mistakes were made......you have learn from them. These hearings are not about learning from mistakes....its about a witch hunt.
She wasn't given bad talking points, she was given false talking points. If it wasn't for the "witch hunt" against these poor, mistreated administration officials we'd still be under the impression that some wacko's youtube video caused a spontaneous protest that led to the deaths of 4 Americans in a fluke accident.
Who said he's lying? He could just be misinformed. He's one person in a large group of people who got all sorts of varying information in the middle of a wartime environment. As noted earlier, Boston PD couldn't even get information right in a stable environment. All you're doing is taking one random source as the absolute truth because it fits the story you want to believe. The ranking Republican on the Senate committee that investigated this and had access to all the data says he's satisfied that he knows what happened and is OK with the White House account of things. Why is that voice conveniently ignored by you in favor of a random person who simply isn't and wasn't ever in a position to have all the data?
Or, different intelligence groups were pursuing different theories and she was given talking points from one of them, which happened to turn out incorrect. Nonsense. The situation was clarified a few weeks after the incident, before any of these witch hunts began. That's how wartime intelligence works. It's muddled at first and takes time to sort out. That doesn't make it a conspiracy or coverup.
I'm beyond fed up with the clowns in DC. The US Congress has to be the laughing stock Western Politics.
The same Bob Corker you quote has stated that in closed door meetings the day of the attack he and other Senators were told directly by intelligence officials that it was terrorism. There was no doubt. Testimony before the senate by a state department official revealed she was able to watch the whole thing in real time, something that Hilary Clinton scoffed at. The President of Libya knew what was going on the day of. The acting ambassador knew it was a terrorist attack the day of. Steve Hayes reported the night of that Tuesday that he had been told it was a terrorist attack. The only people who seem to have been getting "different theories" were the President and his supporters. That isn't true either. Steve Hayes and other conservative reporters began challenging the video assertion from the beginning and were rebuffed repeatedly. I think coverup is the wrong word. I don't believe the administration was covering up some crime they committed, I think they were actively trying to downplay the incident and in order to do so they decided not to be truthful. They figured, correctly, that the majority of the media would just parrot what they said and it would blow over. They were right. Americans didn't care. Heck, the day of the incident Obama couldn't even get the crowd to shut up during his campaign speech when he asked for a moment of silence.
Wow! I have been watching nearly all of today's coverage. The people it looks like that are politicizing this situation are the Democratic Congressmen on the Subcommittee. Republicans are asking question after question trying to get a clearer picture of what happened on 9/11 and surprisingly lots of previous investigations have been contradicted by what has been heard today. Meanwhile you have some Demo lawmakers using the time to give speeches their entire time limit.
Well, them and the CIA that provided it to them: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-19/opinions/35501083_1_cairo-benghazi-attack-safe-room Here are the actual versions of the talking points, obtained by Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/hayestp.img_assist_custom-497x1400.jpg Look at the first bullet point on each. Again, just because some people say they were certain of one conclusion doesn't mean that all intelligence agencies and reports were the same and that those conclusions were being relayed universally. That's my point on the fog of war. Oh people started questioning it immediately - no doubt about that. That's different than what has become a weird witchhunt over the last 6 months accusing the administration of ... something or other. But again, where was the benefit? Was it less of a news event because it was inspired by protests instead of a terrorist attack? It's not like they downplayed the damage or the death. It's not like the news media didn't have wall-to-wall coverage over it when it happened. Were Americans going to care more in the latter scenario and blame the administration? A simple cost-benefit analysis of the benefits and drawbacks to lying about the cause doesn't make any sense to favor lying as far as I can tell.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"If you don't want to believe it, there is no body of evidence that cannot be ignored." <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#Benghazi">#Benghazi</a> <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#RumsfeldsRules">#RumsfeldsRules</a> <a href="http://t.co/OiB9Rm6oMX" title="http://www.amazon.com/Rumsfelds-Rules-Leadership-Business-Politics/dp/0062272853/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368041504&sr=1-1&keywords=rumsfeld's+rules" org_href="http://www.amazon.com/Rumsfelds-Rules-Leadership-Business-Politics/dp/0062272853/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368041504&sr=1-1&keywords=rumsfeld's+rules">amazon.com/Rumsfelds-Rule…</a></p>— Donald Rumsfeld (@RumsfeldOffice) <a href="https://twitter.com/RumsfeldOffice/status/332220172746235904" data-datetime="2013-05-08T14:47:16+00:00">May 8, 2013</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
misinformed? He was there when soldiers where ordered to stand down? Something the White House says didn't happen. he's informed by himself? He was also told jets could be there in 2-3 hours but has no idea why they weren't authorized to be sent. From today: <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jOoGL3eTvZI" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe> random person? Hicks is the highest ranking living witness. MAjor the State department (and the Libyan President) knew the day after that this was a terrorist attack. Emails tell us this Are you really still in the 'I just don't care that I'm being lied to' camp?
Over at National Review, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, writes an interesting op-ed about the questions that he still has about the Sept. 11 terror attacks against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Here are the questions he wants the Obama administration to answer: Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi? Were there really no military assets available to provide relief during the seven hours of the attacks? If so, why not? During the attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down? If the secretary of defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an Internet video? Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to delete references to “Islamic extremists” and "al Qaida"? Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack eight months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing? Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress? Why is the administration apparently unaware of the whistle-blowers who have been attempting to tell their stories? Is it true that these career civil servants have been threatened with retaliation? Did President Obama sleep the night of Sept. 11, 2012? Did Clinton? When was President Obama told about the murder of our ambassador? About the murder of all four Americans? What did he do in response? What role, if any, did the State Department’s own counterterrorism office play during the attacks and in their immediate aftermath? Why was Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report? And why, if all relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, has the State Department’s own Inspector General's office opened a probe into the methods of that very report? Link
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/
Nice try at distraction but the issues are: 1) decisions to not send aid which then left our public servants and soldiers with no hope and 2) politically motivated lying about the cause of the event and the explanations of the decisions that were made to not send help. People are going to die in times of conflict.
Hicks explains multiple times that the lying caused strain between the FBI and Libyan government which hindered the investigation following the attack.
