Benghazi Boogaloo

Whenever someone starts going squishy on what truth is, you can bet your last dollar they are afraid of the truth.

How can anyone (even the vaunted Washington Post) fact check her statement of "What difference does it make!"?

The Inspector General's State Department office is investigating the internal panel that found that, essentially, no one (other than a couple of low level clods) were to blame. Do you really think that this is par for the course?

What facts has Hillary provided?

I will give you some credit though. You are the only liberal who is trying to defend the Administration.

Of course the others are locked into the notion that the topic is beneath discussion.

If all you took from Hick's testimony is that the info coming out of Benghazi was incomplete in real time, then you have revealed how thick the walls of your denial actually are.

I seriously doubt that Obama will be impeached or resign as a result of this incident.

@parados,
As expected.

You never asked for the specifics of the Whistle Blowers so your use of "still" whether capitalized or not is a lame feint.

Your take on the Bush Administration is that each and every decion made was vile, mendacious, or utterly incompetent, and yet you have absolute faith that the Obama Administration is beyond reproach.

“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wrote on his Facebook page on Tuesday, one day before the House Republicans’ hearing on what they — and Fox News — billed as an exposé of a nefarious Obama administration cover-up of its inadequate response to the terror attacks there last year.

Yet — while we heard gut wrenching testimony of how the attacks unfolded from former deputy chief of mission in Libya Greg Hicks — as predicted, no new information came out of the hearing, either about the attacks themselves, any kind of administration cover-up, or any wrongdoing from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the GOP’s apparent new target in its ongoing Benghazi witch-hunt (a targeting that some media outlets are happy to play along with). Ironically, the GOP’s witnesses ended up debunking many of the right-wing conspiracy theories on Benghazi.

Moreover, their testimony “did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration’s response to it,” the New York Times observed. And as the Wall Street Journal noted, “the hearing didn’t shed new light” on whether the military was in a position to mount a rescue the night of the attacks (the military and the State Department’s Accountability Review Board on Benghazi says it was not).

“[T]his investigation is perhaps the most organized, concerted effort that House Republicans have made on anything in Congress since they took control of the House,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said on Wednesday, adding: ““If you say Benghazi enough, if you teach enough people who only type with the Caps Lock key on Twitter to spell Benghazi… then eventually President Obama will be impeached. Or resign.”

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart has more on the GOP-led absurdity, noting that “the denizens of Bullshit Mountain” — a.k.a. Fox News — “have cried wolf before.”

The “whistleblowers” at today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last September were supposed to break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall, in the eyes of conservatives. Instead, these witness actually served to debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi, leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP:

1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi

Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.

Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.

2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi

House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney, that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.

3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down

One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

DEE EVANS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

What do these numbers and countries mean?

In 2002 Karachi, Pakistan; 2004, Uzbekistan; 2004, Saudi Arabia; 2006, Syria; 2007, Athens; 2008, Serbia; 2008, Yemen.

No, it's not a puzzle, but given the current nature of our political discourse, the story behind it will no doubt puzzle you.

Listed above are the years and countries where United States' Embassies were attacked under our previous commander-in-chief, George W. Bush. I found this to be quite revealing given the all out "hair on fire" witch hunt that is currently taking place amongst conservative pundits and Republicans in Congress over the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last year. Now, I will be the first to say that even one person killed in an attack on our embassies is too many, but the fact that seven (count 'em SEVEN!) embassies were attacked and many people killed under the previous Republican administration and we heard nary a word of dismay is more than puzzling, it's downright unbelievable!

Now where does the Republican hero of heroes stand on the attack meter? There were three embassy attacks during Ronald Reagan's presidency, two in 1983 - Beirut (more than 60 killed including 17 Americans) and Kuwait - and one in 1987 in Italy.

In fact, history shows that each of the presidents of the past few decades have had to deal with embassy attacks and bombings. For some reason, I don't ever recall there being so much unrest following an attack as there is now under President Obama.

I guess what really sent me reeling was today when I read about Mike Huckabee's well-crafted remarks on the radio that "Benghazi will be Obama's Watergate" and "this President will not fill out his full term". Excuse me? Let me get this straight. Not only did 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, but seven embassy attacks and Obama is the one that will be ousted? Huckabee claimed that the so-called Benghazi "cover-up" was worse than Watergate "because no one died." Well, I have one question for Mr. Huckabee: How many people died because of the Iraq War "weapons of mass destruction" cover-up? How many American soldiers gave their lives for a war of choice built on exaggeration, manipulation and outright lies? Is that worse than Watergate?

But see, we can't mention that because Bush "kept us safe" remember? Sorry, but if you think that's safe then I have a bridge in San Francisco I want to sell you.

I agree that there may still be some questions that need to be answered regarding the attacks in Benghazi and the families of those who died who have questions deserve to have their questions answered. However, the level of vitriol that is coming out of the Right because of these attacks is undeniably partisan and disgusting.

What's even more outrageous is that absolutely no one is discussing the fact that it was the House Republicans who cut $300 million from the Obama administration's US embassy security budget not long before the embassy attack in Benghazi took place. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who is one of the Republicans bravely leading the Benghazi charge, didn't seem too concerned about the embassy in Libya last year when he made the following statement on CNN in an interview with Soledad O'Brien.


O'BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have - think about this - 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.

And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.

As Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote:


For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. ...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" — a charge Republicans rejected.

So in a nutshell this is what is just driving me to the brink of insanity. Republicans are on a non-stop witch hunt about lack of security at the US Embassy in Benghazi and yet no one in the media (except Soledad...why was she let go again?) seems to be questioning the indisputable fact that it was Republicans who insisted on cutting the funding for embassy security right before the embassy in Benghazi was attacked. Absolutely no one seems to be holding the Republicans feet to the fire that they helped set!

I had a thought a few years ago about how this country came together after September 11 and how Democrats and Republicans put partisan politics aside for the good of the country. I thought about how the Democrats rallied around George W. Bush following the attack and pretty much voted yes to anything he wanted in the spirit of "we're all in this together". I wondered out loud what would happen if God forbid something like that happened today? Would the country (and Republicans) rally around the President for the good of the country, would the Republicans vote yes on anything President Obama asked or would there be the blame-game, finger-pointing, and hearings about what Obama did wrong? Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to this one and it actually saddens me.