Benghazi only matters to Americans who demand honesty and integrity from their
government. All others need not be concerned, need not apply and demand we
ignore this and sweep it under the rug along with fast and furious, the white
house intelligent leaks and other scandals! More evidence of the very low level
to which our country has declined;that we would put up with this incompetence
During the presidency of George Bush Jr. there were several attacks on U.S.
embassies resulting in over fifty American deaths. Yet the people who are
screaming the loudest about Benghazi never uttered a peep in response to all
Those who think that they are royalty will never consider the consequences of
their actions on the lives of the "pawns". They are so full of
themselves that they pretend that they are not "temp workers" who work
for the people. They think that they can lie. They think that they can cheat.
They think that they can misuse power. They think that our purpose is to give
them a great big airplane to use as if it were a toy tricycle. They think that
our purpose is to entertain them, to feed them, to house them. They forget that
they have sworn an oath to God and to the people of this nation to uphold the
Constitution and to honorably fulfill the duties of their elected and appointed
offices.Obama has shown us what happens when an inept President
occupies the White House. He has shown the families of those who died in the
Benghazi attack that he considered their lives meaningless. His Secretary of
State, Hillery Clinton, voiced his contempt for those he serves. "What difference does it make?".
Looking at video of Hillary's remarks, here's the statement she was
responding to.Sen. Ron Johnson: "We were misled that there was
supposedly protests, and then something sprang out of that, this all sprang out
of that, and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the
American people could have known that within days, and they didn't know
that."At issue is the fact that Obama and his cabinet have been
caught lying to the American people. A planned al Queda attack on Americans
stationed in Libya was inconvenient to Obama's re-election campaign, so he
lied about it, and he asked others to lie about it.Yes, there are
four dead Americans. Why can't the truth be told by the people whose job it
was to protect them?
I agree with the letter writer, and I'll take it one step further, Benghazi
is the tip of the ice burg of lies told to us. For crying out loud just pass an
@Roland KayserBush didn't blame a video.
Riding the Benghazi phantom media horse illustrates how the conservatives know
only how to meanly attack and not govern.
Actually what the Madame Secretary said was "what does it matter now"
after she had given exhaustive testimony about what she had known and not known
on that day. What the President knew and didn't know on that day, and
about the intense investigations that were taking place regarding what had
happened in Bengazi, and in the State Department. She had more than
demonstrated her caring her sorrow, and her competence in uncovering the facts
of that day and the preceeding days, one of which was that it actually
wasn't that easy to know within hours whether or not the video had played
any role in the attack. Couch quarterbacking is easy when you have two choices
and blind luck awards you a win. What does it matter now was simply a frustrated
response to the blind luck struttring of republican senators prancing around
spinking the football trying to make political points while the real work was
The truth HAS been told. Again and again.But the GOP refuses to
listen because they hope they can convince people to vote for them.For voters with brains, that won't work.
During 2000-2008, there were 12 attacks on our embassies resulting in 55 deaths.
Anyone else remember Needra's letters to the editors demanding to "get
to the bottom of those attacks?"Ya... Neither to I.Obama won now get over it
This letter smells not of someone seeking some profound 'truth' about
Bhengazi but rather the raking of muck.
Here's Secretary Clinton's entire quote:"Was it because of a
protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill
some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to
figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever
happening again, Senator.Honestly, I will do my best to answer your
questions about this, but the fact is people were trying their best in real time
to get to the best information,"This was in response to the complaint
that Susan Rice, on Sunday talk shows, had referenced the video. And the
reality is, the video WAS significant. It HAD led to protests outside many
other embassies. Sorting out the differences between those protests and the
attack in Benghazi, in real time, with the usual confusion and noise from
conflicting intelligence reports, took awhile. What you cannot say, though, is
that nobody cared about Americans killed by terrorists, or that there
wasn't a concerted effort to figure out what happened, who was responsible,
and how best to bring them to justice.
Truth does matter. Of course the least honest White House in history was the
Bush/Cheney reign so if outraged repubs were honest, their outrage would be
directed at Bush/Cheney.
Truth is not something we are going to learn about the American foreign policy
and it’s consequences. By making the Benghazi thing greater
that all other things going wrong with our foreign policy the republicans do
great harm to their cause. Instead of hurting the Obama election, they helped
it. On republicans.
What Susan Rice said on ABC 5 days after the attack:"Our current
best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in
fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated
— response to what had transpired in Cairo. In CAIRO as you know, a few
hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to
this very offensive video that was disseminated.We believe that folks in
Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the
consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.
And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some
individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as
you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite
common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.We’ll wait to
see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best
information we have at present.
Had our Benghazi consulate been attacked by protesters rather than terrorists,
do you think Republicans would have eased up on their attacks on Obama? Of
course not. Their talking point would have been: If Obama’s people are so
incompetent that they can’t even protect our diplomats from mere
protesters, just think how vulnerable we are to actual terrorists.
From the LA Times, Nov 2012:"“The adjustments were focused on
producing talking points that provided the best information available at the
time, protected sensitive details and reflected the evolving nature of rapidly
incoming intelligence…The CIA drafted the initial talking points, and they
were not ‘edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist
affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,’ said a second U.S.
official familiar with how the material was edited.”From the
Wall Street Journal, Dec 2012:“The officials said the first
draft of the talking points had a reference to al Qaeda but it was removed by
the Central Intelligence Agency, to protect sources and protect investigations,
before the talking points were shared with the White House. No evidence has so
far emerged that the White House interfered to tone down the public intelligence
assessment, despite the attention the charge has received.”The
report says that intelligence officials “still believe the attack was
inspired in part by the earlier protest in Cairo over the video.”
From Huffington Post October 10, 2012 "Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce
the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning
the majority in 2010."On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad
O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding
for embassy security."""Absolutely," Chaffetz said.
"Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We
have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a
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.
You have to prioritize things."So Republicans, and their
surrogates like Needra Johnson, favor cuts to embassy security and then when
that lack of funding results in tragic deaths, they start pointing fingers away
from themselves. Typical.
Spontaneous attack? 3 hours before the attack, the embassy requested additional
security.. Military commanders in the area offered a platoon of marines and Air
cover from a carrier group.. All were refused! Secy. of State stated that
additional security was not possible because congress did not appropriate enough
money.. How much would it have cost to simply say "Yes" to the
military? No, there are matters of more concern here than what happened in
another time or to another regime. There are reasons those security measures
were denied, and the citizens need to know them!
the truth stopped being important to the far right the day the event happened
this has been nothing but a pathetic atempt to score some cheap political points
of these peoples tragic deaths
@mountain man your right the truth about the tragic lives lost in
Benghazi only matter to those of us that wanted the facts. The rest only seek to
score cheap political points with their wild conspiracy theories and false
claims against our country but we tolerate the incompetence and dishonesty of
the far right because we believe in the freedom of speech even when that speech
Under President Obama, the attack on Benghazi and the tragic death of x4
American lives. Due, in large part to the Republican House voting to
cut security funding to the Benghazi Embassy. Under George W. Bush,
x12 terrorist attacks to US Embassies and x53 dead Americans. This
does not include 9/11 or the American lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. You want the truth? We loose more Americans under
Re:DougSYour source?From the ARB (action review board), headed
by Admiral Mullen and former Ambassador Pickering:"The
interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough
time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made
a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after
Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night.
The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of
support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the
contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi
twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force
Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military
response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. In
addition, at the State Department’s request, the Department of Defense
also provided a Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) as additional
security support for Embassy Tripoli on September 12."
@ECR "...funding for embassy security..."@Pagan "...voting to
cut security funding..."Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant
secretary of state for diplomatic security, gave testimony before the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as follows:Q:
“Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not
to increase the number of people in the security force there?”Lamb: "No sir."Why would she say this? Because, when you
count $236 million in Overseas Contingency Operations funds which were added to
the regular budgets for embassy security and worldwide security protection,
there was a net *increase* in funding. (See "Obama's New Lie" on
Tea Party rationalizations ===4 deaths in Benghazi into creating a
Mountain OUT OF of a mole hill.4,000 deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan and simply
ignoring a Mountain INTO a mole hill.
From the Mullens/Pickering ARB:"For many years the State
Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to
carry out its work, with varying degrees of success. This has brought about a
deep sense of the importance of husbanding resources to meet the highest
priorities, laudable in the extreme in any government department. But it has
also had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor
restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.The
solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to
support State Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small percentage
both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. One
overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this
challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address
security risks and meet mission imperatives."
We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline
what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billionWorldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247
millionEmbassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide
Security Upgrades: $938 millionTotal: $2.64 billionHere’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also
rounded):Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31
billionWorldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations):
$247 millionEmbassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide
Security Upgrades: $755 millionTotal: $2.31 billionThe
difference between these two amounts is nearly $327 million -- The
above is from politifact So, Nate, you will notice that overseas
contingency operations funding is included in the numbers. Maybe you don't
want to rely on blogs at whizbang. Just saying.
Tolstoy... I don't believe you could handle the truth. Your post sounds
as though you believe the Obama administration was the "Far Right"...
Perhaps that is so.. after all, they are the ones lying about Benghazi.
To Mike Richards 6:53 a.m. Feb. 9, 2013You got the wrong administration.
That should have read "GWBush has shown us what happens when an inept
President occupies the White House. He has shown the families of those who died
in the World Trade Center attack that he considered their lives meaningless,
except as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq, and in the process, voiced his
contempt for those he serves. ================To Nate
8:22 a.m. Feb. 9, 2013@Roland KayserBush didn't
blame a video.-----------------No -- unlike the Obama
administration, George and his administration refused to accept accountability
for his/their actions.=================To DougS 2:36
p.m. Feb. 10, 2013You comment is a bit skewed. Yes, the Far Right
is doing its best to lie about, and mis-characterize, the Obama administration
concerning (among other things) its actions at Benghazi. No, the Obama
administration is not lying about (among other things) its actions at Benghazi.
It appears that YOU are the one who cannot handle the truth.
@mark "Maybe you don't want to rely on blogs at whizbang."Or, you could carefully read the article cited, and see that the comparisons
were between FY 2011 and FY 2012 (actual funding, not requested funding).They got a budget increase in 2012, and Charlene Lamb testified that
budget was not a consideration. Find a new excuse.
Re:NateLolCharlene Lamb was the one who denied requests for
additional security in Benghazi prior to the attack.She resigned her
position after the Benghazi investigation and report was completed.
Bush didn't blame a video? More than a decade later, he has yet
to take responsibility... *'George W Bush says Iraq
intelligence failure is his biggest regret' - By Alex Spillius - 12/01/08 -
The UK telegraph'Though the outgoing US president failed to
take responsibility for the misfortunes that have beset the country during his
eight years in office, he was candid about wishing things had gone better.'
Ok.... I get that Fox and company want to make this the most important story de
jour, but lets look at some real problems. In the United States there is on
average about 1.5 murders per hour. Put another way, each day, here, in the
United States of America, each day, each and every day, there are 10 times more
people murdered per day. Now we can continue to spend millions of
federal dollars trying to figure out who changed the text of Ms. Rice's
speach to say these could have come from protest of the movie - as was happening
in 3 other cities at the same time, but what will that serve in the end. This
is another "is" meaning type moment - a flash back to the Clinton
inquiries which again wasted huge amounts of time and funds.Every
2.5 hours, more Americans are killed than were killed in this attach - this
singular and only attack. This isn't about saving human lives - this is
only about politics. If it were about lives, the real problem is here, where
likely while you read this site, another American lost their life to murder.
1aggieSALT LAKE CITY, UTRe:NateLolCharlene Lamb
was the one who denied requests for additional security in Benghazi prior to the
attack.She resigned her position after the Benghazi investigation
and report was completed.6:53 p.m. Feb. 10, 2013Like (1) Report
abuse--Oops Nate. Want to try again?
Oh, and also Nate. What excuse? The president requested more funding for
security, the Republicans gave him millions less then he asked for. Maybe if the
Republicans had not done this these people would still be alive. We will never
know will we? But we do know that the President saw a need for additional
funding for security to protect Ambasadors and their people, and the Republicans
thought this was an area that could be cut. That we do know. It takes some gall
for the Republicans to criticize.
To moral people, the truth always matters.To others, convenient half
truths and lies are accepted as truth, because they support what they want to
"To moral people, the truth always matters."I think a more
correct interpretation of this statement is to many, being told the truth is a
moral imperative, where as telling the truth is sometimes not as necessary. The truth here is a mistakes were made. A mistake was made by the
Ambassador in keeping a meeting on 9/11 in an unprotected facility, when many
warned doing so was unsafe. Read the manuscripts.The truth is early
on, the government wasn't sure exactly what went wrong, as in 3 other
capitals there were protest going on that were about this stupid movie that was
made, and in that fog they didn't immediately identify correctly the root
cause of those events.The truth is Ms. Rice was given bad
information in her speech.... And the truth is none of this proves a
conspiracy or gross negligence by anyone. But that truth is not politically
expedient. The Obama administration should have answered they weren't sure
what happened in those hours followed. People have been fired for their roles.
Mistakes have been acknowledged. The truth is this is politics -
not a quest for truth.
from the transcript, "...the fact is we had four dead Americans.
Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night
who decided they’d they go kill some Americans?"She was
dodging even with this statement, because neither of these suggestions are what
happened. Why was it so hard to say it was a pre-meditated 9/11 anniversary
attack? Here are some truths we don't have because they are
being withheld:Who had the memos requesting additional security and
didn't act on them? Who were the people fired, and what were
their specific failures in performance of duties?Who decided, when
Great Britain and other countries took their ambassadors out, to we leave ours
there with minimal protection?(The questions she was asked when she
exploded):Why were the American people told it was a protest when it
wasn't? Did you fail to ask survivors what happened? Why were
there some who knew it was a terrorist attack, while the message to the public
was that is was not a terrorist attack? Who decided to say publicly, it
was a protest?The people deserve these truths.
4 americans died. What difference does it make, If the people who killed them
were out for a stroll, or were enraged by some video. They died! During the Bush
administration 53 americans were killed in embassy's. Not a peep from the
democrats demanding accountability. 3,000 people were killed on 9-11. Was the
media and the democrats enraged calling for who said what and when? This whole
story is the rightwing hate radio clowns stirring it up as a conspiracy, and Fox
newsd doing the same. 4 americans died. We need to do whatever we can to make
sure it doesnt happen again. Not cry conspiracy, and just keep stirring up the
vitriol and hate. Remember 9-11. 3,000 dead. The 53 killed in embassy's
under Bush's watch. All that was said about that was" At least he kept
us safe" PLEASE!!!
It matters because the stories we have been told are fabrications. It matters because those four people may have died to re-elect some guy, a
mission they didn't willingly sign up for.I hope that proves to
not be the case, but so far all the stonewalling and fabrications make it look
like there is a story here that certain democrats don't want ever known.
Let the truth come out and lets make a fully informed determination once and for
all. I would think the those of the administration would want to
clear their names of this, and would cooperate with an investigation, if they
have nothing to hide. That just doesn't seem to be the case.
Time for inquiry as to each death in Iraq.
@Badgerbadger"It matters because those four people may have died
to re-elect some guy"What a salacious and rediculas comment.
How would these peoples deaths - under any circumstances - help anyones election
possibilities?Whether or not the deaths were caused by a random
riot, or a coordinated terorsit attack doesn't change the point that the
ambassador went out on the anniversary of 9/11, and that the Lybian security was
inadequit, and we didn't have assets staged close enough to help. None of this helped Obama. It was not a rallying point. It showed that
we are still exposed in dangerous parts of the world. Just like in Turkey, and
just like in Algeria.The idea this was a ploy to win votes... it
just shows how low and base this conversation has gotten.
Perhaps 'gambled with' would have been better wording, you know, like
gambling in the wall street casino, only this time it was 'lives'
being bet instead of money. The US lost, by the way, or in other words, those
our administration put at risk, DIED. The end result is what I said before.Fabrications, question dodging with an out burst that answers none of
the hanging questions, indignation (like how dare we question the chief?), all
to cover for their disregard for our ambassador's life. I guess
the terrorists aren't on the run after all, and the world has not been made
safe, as we were told.The planet doesn't seem all that
healed.The economy is not really in recovery either. They have just
turned up the rate of life support and steroids to make it look better before
the election.So many lies. Benghazi caused by a video among them.