Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2015 08:09 am
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/56937/large/benghazi.jpg

Dispelling some myths:

1. No one has been held accountable for Benghazi:

~False. 4 individuals were identified to be at fault in the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) report, and have been removed from their jobs.

"…all four individuals identified in the ARB have been removed from their job. Secondly, they’ve been placed on administrative leave while we stepped through the personnel process to determine the next steps.

Third, both Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen specifically highlighted the reason why this is complicated, because under federal statute and regulations, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of duty. The ARB did not find these four individuals breached their duty.

So I have submitted legislation to this committee, to the Congress, to fix this problem so future ARBs will not face this situation.” ~Secretary of State Hillary Clinton



2. Hillary hasn’t taken responsibility for Benghazi:

~False.

"As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.” ~Secretary of State Hillary Clinton



3. Hillary has accepted responsibility with words only:

~False. Hillary launched an Accountability Review Board, removed the 4 individuals identified to be at fault, and implemented the 29 recommendations set forth by the ARB.

"Since 1988, there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their facilities. Benghazi joins a long list of tragedies, for our Department and for other agencies: hostages taken in Tehran in 1979, our embassy and Marine barracks bombed in Beirut in 1983 (this happened under Reagan and we lost over 100 U.S. servicemen), Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in East Africa in 1998, consulate staff murdered in Jeddah in 2004, the Khost attack in 2009, and too many others.

I have accepted every one of their recommendations — and I asked the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources to lead a task force to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely.” ~Secretary of State Hillary Clinton



4. Hillary Clinton intentionally launched a false narrative about a YouTube video being the cause of Benghazi:

~False. The intelligence community initially thought the YouTube video was related to the Benghazi attack. Hillary Clinton repeated the intelligence communities talking points.

Violent protests had erupted throughout the Middle East simultaneous to Benghazi. Many of the protests throughout the Middle East and in Cairo revolved around the YouTube video, which is why it was initially thought Benghazi was also related to the YouTube video. We now know that although the attackers in Benghazi weren’t directly connected to the protests revolving around the YouTube video, the unstable environment provided by the protests gave the Benghazi perpetrators an opportunity to launch their attack successfully.



5. The Obama Administration did not call Benghazi a “terrorist attack”:

~False.

Senator Joe Lieberman: “Let me begin by asking you whether you would say that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack?”
Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen: “Certainly on that particular question I would say, yes. They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”



6. Hillary personally denied requests for more security in Benghazi:

~False. 1.43 million cables are sent to the State Department each year. Security requests are handled by security professionals in the State Department. No cables requesting more security reached Hillary’s desk.



7. The Benghazi attacks were “preventable”:

~True. Virtually all tragedies are “preventable” with 20/20 hindsight — including the Beirut bombings under Reagan, 9/11/2001, and the 13 embassy attacks under George Bush’s Administration.



8. Hillary Clinton said, “What difference, at this point, does it make” that 4 men died in Benghazi:

~False. Hillary was referring to the Republican’s obsession with Susan Rice’s talking points, not Benghazi itself.

Republicans didn’t care when Bush lied about WMDs, nor did they express outrage over 9/11/2001, the Iraq War, or the 13 embassy attacks with 50+ dead under Bush. Their outrage over Benghazi is phony and they are essentially spitting on the graves of those lost in Benghazi for political gain. If Republicans cared so much about embassy security, why did they cut funding for it by millions of dollars? Why didn't they express outrage over the 13 embassy/consulate attacks under Bush?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65458/large/diplomatic-attacks4.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65459/large/tumblr_mz7a44lBMX1svzlzeo2_500.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65460/large/tumblr_mz7a44lBMX1svzlzeo3_500.jpg

Here are some FACTS for those that attack Hillary Clinton on Benghazi:

1. The nonpartisan Accountability Review Board did not find Hillary Rodham Clinton responsible for the Benghazi attacks. Hillary never directly received the cables requesting more security from Benghazi.

2. Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars in “embassy security.” Cuts that Hillary Clinton called “detrimental” to our security overseas.

3. Over 50 people died from 13 embassy/consulate attacks under George Bush’s Presidency.

4. The Obama Administration did not “cover-up” the Benghazi attacks. Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen told Senator Joe Lieberman that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack”. This was only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk-shows. Therefore, this would have to be the shortest “cover-up” in history.

Senator Joe Lieberman: “Let me begin by asking you whether you would say that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack.”

Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen: “Certainly on that particular question I would say, yes. They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”

5. Hillary’s quote, "What difference, at this point, does it make" has been taken out of context. Hillary was referring to the Republican’s obsession with what Susan Rice said, not Benghazi itself. We now know the intelligence communities talking points that Susan Rice presented were incorrect. But to accuse the Administration of intentionally lying (when Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen called it a “terrorist attack” only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows) is dishonest.

6. The reason the YouTube video was cited as a possible reason for Benghazi is because violent protests had been erupting throughout the Middle East when Benghazi took place. Some of the protests had to do with the YouTube video, which is why it was originally thought Benghazi was also related to the YouTube video.

Embassy attacks are an unfortunate reality in the world and have occurred under every administration in modern times. Security overseas is always risky business, and those who take jobs in dangerous places know the risks. Unfortunately, Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars from embassy security.


http://40.media.tumblr.com/3e779a1c9838d8b5c59a5ff3844d768f/tumblr_nu10y11CPi1svzlzeo2_500.jpg

https://therealwithdarylanddevon.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/img_3435.jpg


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 11 • Views: 2,673 • Replies: 21

 
Below viewing threshold (view)
bobsal u1553115
 
  5  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2015 12:03 pm
@twobits,
Carpfarts been suspended again!!!!!!!!!!!
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2015 03:28 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Did Congressman Trey Gowdy play Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films?
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2015 05:48 pm
@glitterbag,
Want to consider something that will make you sick? Trey Gowdy will be reelected again until he dies.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2015 07:23 pm
@RABEL222,
Gowdy is South Carolina's baby. I'm not surprised so it doesn't make me sick. If he lasts as long as Strom Thurmond, it's still South Carolina's choice. I like the beaches in South Carolina, I like to end on a positive note.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2015 03:51 am
I thought Hillary held up better yesterday than Gowdy (rhymes with dowdy) did.
0 Replies
 
viola
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2015 05:02 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Gowdy is South Carolina's baby.


Like Robert Byrd was W.Virginias?
viola
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2015 05:05 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Carpfarts been suspended again!!!!!!!!!!!


You mean censored again.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2015 05:27 pm
@viola,
viola wrote:

Quote:
Gowdy is South Carolina's baby.


Like Robert Byrd was W.Virginias?


Yes, welcome to A2K. What name did you use before you got kicked off???
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2015 08:11 am
CIA informed the panel that it does not view a 2011 email forwarded by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as including any classified information

Quote:
The credibility of the Republican-led Benghazi committee came under fresh attack Sunday after the CIA informed the panel that it does not view a 2011 email forwarded by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as including any classified information. The committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., had cited Clinton’s handling of the March 18, 2011, email as a prime example of her misusing her private email server to receive and send highly classified information.

The email was sent by her close friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal and forwarded by Clinton to an aide. It contained the “name of a human source” for the CIA in Libya and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives,” Gowdy wrote in an Oct. 7 letter.

But late Saturday night, a CIA official informed the committee that the agency does not view that email, among 127 previously undisclosed messages sent by Blumenthal to Clinton that the panel plans to release this week, as having any portions that need to be redacted because they include classified information.

The CIA finding prompted Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the panel’s ranking Democrat, to demand that Gowdy publicly apologize for his “irresponsible” allegation. It was, he charged in a letter released Sunday morning, further evidence that the GOP-led committee is making false charges “in order to attack Secretary Clinton for political reasons.”

Gowdy quickly responded in his own lengthy email, conceding the CIA did not seek any redactions in the Blumenthal email but maintaining that it may still have included information “that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive.”

Gowdy then released the full text of the March 18, 2011, message from Blumenthal, minus the identity of the supposed Libya intelligence source. But Gowdy included Blumenthal’s full subject line, which did have the name of an individual apparently blanked out in the rest of the email: Mousa Kousa, Libya’s foreign minister (and previously its intelligence chief), who made a highly publicized defection to the United Kingdom that same month.

The email was filled with seemingly inside information about Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s plans to respond to a United Nations resolution authorizing the use of military force against his regime. The information purportedly came from a former top CIA official and a business associate of Blumenthal, Tyler Drumheller. Drumheller, Blumenthal wrote, had obtained this information from the CIA’s source, apparently Mousa Kousa.

After receiving the email from Blumenthal on her private email account, Clinton forwarded it to a special assistant on her staff, Lauren C. Jiloty, with a two-word instruction: “Pls Print.”

The fact that the CIA did not seek any redactions in the email “appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya, or the review process [by executive branch agencies] is faulty or has been politicized,” Gowdy wrote in a letter Sunday responding to Cummings.

bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2015 01:53 pm
@revelette2,
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that there's no basis for any more than the twelve or so previous "investigations/hearings/bullshit.

I event: 13 "investigations".
7 burnt predominantly black attended churches in Ferguon, MO and NO/NONE/ZIPPO/NADA investigations?

How 'bout thet.
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2015 09:37 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
I will merely point out the hypocrisy here as were this a Republican you all would have the effigy's burning all day and night.

That is all.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2015 10:42 pm
@McGentrix,
That's rich.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  5  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2015 11:26 pm
@McGentrix,
Clinton's misuse of personal email pales in comparison to Dick Cheney's deception of the American public conflating 9/11, Saddam Hussein and supposed WMDs in his drive to invade Iraq.

Clinton and the Obama Administration's mishandling of the situation in Benghazi pales in comparison to the cluster **** of the Bush Administration's mishandling of their invasion of Iraq.
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2015 11:35 pm
To the rest of the world we look like idiots. The real problem was that we rubbed out Gaddafi because we were stupid, we were lead around with guilt trips invented by a few stupid elites (Hillary was a prime driver by the way) and thus never turned our brains on. And no one is even talking about that Natch.

Washington does not work. The journalists suck. The people are stupid. THe elite still have everyone chasing squirrels as they plunder the place.

WAKE THE **** UP PEOPLE, YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT!
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2015 01:36 am
@InfraBlue,
I wonder why the Republicans chose that particular bunch of Congresspeople. Some of them seemed to think they were in an interrogation room shifting out evidence of a crime. But with so many Prosecutors, still wet behind their undeveloped Statesman's ears, I guess they were a tad confused. I guess we will just have to wait for the next Benghazi witch hunt.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  5  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2015 09:01 am
@InfraBlue,
In response to your request for equal deliberation:

The Emails that Dick Cheney Deleted


By Scott Horton
Share

Late last week, right after official White House spokesmen made a series of either evasive or completely false statements about the mysterious case of the vanishing, then reappearing, then perhaps no really vanished White House emails, Henry Waxman and his Oversight Committee announced some of the conclusions they had reached. Dan Eggen and Elizabeth Williamson published an account of it on Friday in the Washington Post:

The White House possesses no archived e-mail messages for many of its component offices, including the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President, for hundreds of days between 2003 and 2005, according to the summary of an internal White House study that was disclosed yesterday by a congressional Democrat.
The 2005 study — whose credibility the White House attacked this week — identified 473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices, said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

Waxman said he decided to release the summary after White House spokesman Tony Fratto said yesterday that there is “no evidence” that any White House e-mails from those years are missing. Fratto’s assertion “seems to be an unsubstantiated statement that has no relation to the facts they have shared with us,” Waxman said. The competing claims were the latest salvos in an escalating dispute over whether the Bush administration has complied with long-standing statutory requirements to preserve official White House records — including those reflecting potentially sensitive policy discussions — for history and in case of any future legal demands.

Waxman said he is seeking testimony on the issue at a hearing next month from White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, National Archivist Allen Weinstein and Alan R. Swendiman, the politically appointed director of the Office of Administration, which produced the 2005 study at issue.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has now posted a series of studies to help us zero in on just what’s missing. It will come as no surprise to most that the big offender is the man at the center of the most virulent scandals, and the missing email traffic relates just to those dates in which a federal prosecutor would have the most interest. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office destroyed its emails, in violation of the requirements of the federal records act and potentially criminal law, for the following days:

September 12, 2003: The day on which the headlines in the New York Times read “federal appeals court in Washington yesterday rejected the Bush administration’s effort to avoid releasing documents about Vice President Cheney Energy Task Force.”

October 1, 2003: The day on which the Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court that Vice President Cheney was entitled to keep all the details concerning his meetings with oil executives and their influence in his formulation of national energy policy confidential, including the names of the participants.

October 2, 2003: The day on which senior Congressional Republicans began a rewrite of key energy legislation behind closed doors and without involvement of Democrats—but potentially with the involvement of Vice President Cheney and oil executives involved in his secret energy task force.

October 3, 2003: The Senate approved a requirement that all future contracts to rebuild Iraq be granted on an open and competitive basis after airing open criticism on the closed and controversial process that resulted in multi-billion dollar noncompetitive contract awards to subsidiaries of Halliburton, the company which Vice President Cheney headed before he assumed office, and from which, under a deferred compensation agreement, he continues to receive more compensation than he receives from the Treasury for his services as vice president.

October 5, 2003: Publication of the findings of a task force studying the development of the Iraqi oil industry and its potential for funding the costs of the occupation of Iraq.

January 29, 2004: David A. Kay, the former chief American weapons inspector in Iraq, called for an independent inquiry into pre-war intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs as skepticism about the administration’s claims about Iraqi WMD grows.

January 30, 2004: President Bush opposes an independent investigation of intelligence failures surrounding Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction stockpiles despite increasing demands for one by some U.S. lawmakers.

January 31, 2004: Press reports focus on building speculation that an independent commission will be created to look into the White House’s basis for claims that Iraq had WMDs, accusations which were consistently led by Vice President Cheney.

February 15, 2005: Citing the threat exemplified by 9/11, President Bush urges Congress to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

February 16, 2005: An appeals court orders that two reporters who have refused to testify about their conversations with confidential sources regarding the leak that exposed the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame should be held in contempt. It would later be revealed that both had conversations with members of Vice President Cheney’s staff.

May 23, 2005: Calls mount for the resignation of Tom Delay pending the outcome of an investigation into ethical violations. The Congressional and criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff widens to include long-time associate and fellow architect of the Republican takeover of the capital, Grover Norquist. The White House continues to obstruct efforts to identify who Abramoff saw in his hundreds of visits to the White House.

The missing Cheney emails fit a pattern that suggests intentional rather than accidental destruction. They all occur on days on which, considering contemporaneous press reports, the Vice President or his staff members were in the news and would likely have been communicating on the subjects relating to the press coverage. The most persistent themes are the outing of Valerie Plame and Cheney’s secret dealings with a group of oil and gas executives who were directly influencing national energy policy. The Empty Wheel has some excellent analysis of these points.

I keep wondering: have they checked that man-sized safe in Cheney’s office? Maybe he kept some copies there.

And in the meantime, Blimp TV offers a promotional videotape for the administration’s proposed new petroleum-based coinage.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2015 06:31 am
Why Republicans keep bringing up Sidney Blumenthal at the Benghazi hearings
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2015 06:45 am
@revelette2,
Long scroll well worth the read. Thankyou!
 

Related Topics

Benghazi Boogaloo - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
FOX NEW'S FAN GIRL MOMENT! - Question by tsarstepan
End to the Benghazi kerfluffle - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
GOP Reactions To Benghazi Suspect Capture - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Four dead Americans in Benghazi - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Benghazi - Discussion by H2O MAN
Real Benghazi Scandal - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bemghazi, Bloody Benghazi
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 02:47:01