@Schnee "At least for part of it he was in the Oval Office."Great. After twenty months, we can now account for 30 minutes of the
President's time. Panetta and Dempsey said they had only one conversation
with him. Where was he the rest of the time? The compound in Benghazi was under
attack for eight hours.Nixon's gap was only 18-1/2 minutes.Think on this: if Obama is willing to let us believe that he was asleep
at the switch rather than telling us what he was really doing, it must be really
damaging."There were mistakes..."There were
willful lies. Carter Ham told Panetta within 15 minutes of the start of the
attack that it was a terror attack. Between that time and 10:30 PM the story
changed to "blame the video." Where was Obama during this time period,
and what orders did he give? You don't know. Twenty months have gone by,
and the country still does not know.
Of course, now we have liberals claiming that that Ambassador Stevens was not
killed, but died as a result of smoke inhalation, and still spewing "the
Video is at fault" stuff.So by liberal logic, the 9/11 victims
were not killed by terrorists, but because the twin towers collapsed.
The committee really has two jobs: 1 Conduct the hearings. 2 Deal with the
tidal wave of negative media coverage ad hominem attacks from libs that
will surely accompany the hearings. If they don't do (2) competently,
they will be the losers, regardless facts found in (1).
"How many more will he let die to save his face?"So now
somehow he let the four in Benghazi die to save face. This just gets more and
more bizarre as it spins along.
‘Charles Krauthammer: Benghazi — How to do the hearings
right’==== Gee, I don't know.Pick
a Show trial - any show trial...Perhaps they should study how
'ol Sen. Joe McCarthy did it,or perhaps the Salem Witch Trials,
@Ernest T. Bass,RE: "Ignore the 12 or 13 similar attacks under Bush,
while screaming Benghazi"...I tried what you suggested. I
tried screaming "Benghazi"... while ignoring the 12 or 13 similar
attacks under Bush... what was supposed to happen?... people at work just looked
at me like was crazy...===Is it supposed to change
something if you REMEMBER the attacks that happened under Bush... while
screaming "Benghazi"...I doubt it will change anything...
but I'll try it if you think it would change something...
Ernest, Bush left office in January of 2009. He no longer holds
power in this country. His minions are not looking to run in 2016. (And
incidentally, he didn't lie about attacks that occurred during his tenure.
They were terrorist attacks, and he admitted it.)What exactly do you
hope to gain from such an investigation? Feel free to investigate,
for your own interest. But public funds should be spent on things that effect
the public today and tomorrow. Benghazi still does. Our lying uncaring president
still is in power. How many more will he let die to save his face? Do we want to
allow that?Then there are his minions who may want to run for
election down the road. We have a right to know who they are and what their real
Scream Benghazi, ignore Iraq. Ignore the 12 or 13 similar attacks under Bush,
while screaming Benghazi.
Reagan sleeping during the bombing in Lebanon... must be the thing to say in
response to this today...Google "1983 Beirut barracks
bombing"... Wikipedia...IF you want the whole story (not just the
political hack version).===It's an
apples-to-oranges comparison.#1. The attack in Beirut happened in
the amount of time it takes for a truck to plow through the barricades and
detonate. Unless Reagan spent his whole life in the situation room
(just in case something happened)... there was no time for him to get to the
situation room in that amount of time.#2. There was no information
that the marines were in more danger that day (they were in danger every day),
but it wasn't 9/11, and we didn't have intel that something was
planned for that day. We did 9/11 2012.===The truck
detonated at 06:22... CH-46s from Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (HMM) 162,
were airborne by 6:45 AM.... (minutes)IF we had responded in minutes
to news of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi... we could have stopped it
before it became deadly (we had hours)
@Nate"Okay, answer me this: where was the President all evening, and
what was he doing?"At least for part of it he was in the Oval
Office. He'd told Dempsey and Panetta to deploy forces but pretty much
nothing was available and ready to go. Most decisions were made by the Joint
Chiefs and other defense related groups because well... they're the
experts. You wouldn't want Obama personally trying to fix the Obamacare
website, he's not a computer scientist. "Why are you
defending lies and stonewalling?"There were mistakes and we knew
basically everything by early October. I don't see any effort to fix the
problems that occurred that day, I just see an effort to try and ruin
Clinton's 2016 chances. @Counter Intelligence"Obama/Hillary blatantly lied to protect himself during a campaign"He called it an act of terror within a couple days and by the end of the
month they already had the main facts straightened out.
pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utah"Okay, answer me this:
where was the President all evening, and what was he doing?"========== Agreed.Reagan SLEPT when 241 Marines were
killed in a bombing, and his staff didn't even bother to wake him up
to tell him about it.Where today's conservative think Pres.
Obama is a little General, with his finger on the button, flying
radio controled drones around all over the world, attacking terrorists, or
protecting embassies, troops, and 350 Million individual Americas worldwide, autonomously and all by himself is simply ridiculous.
@NatePleasant Grove, UT@The Real Maverick "I bet they
couldn't even tell you any of the names of those who were killed!"What you're doing here is called projection. I hope you will come
to learn over the course of the investigation that the names and families of
Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith are held in high
regard by most Americans. Your expectation that their names would not be known
is itself rather telling.2:37 p.m. May 11, 2014=========== What you are doing is Google searching --- at
least shuffle the names so it at least LOOKS like you knew it without having to
look them up.BTW -- as a veteran myself, I would be ashamed that my
life and good name would be used and exploited for political purposes like this.
"Okay, answer me this: where was the President all evening, and what was he
doing?"Okay answer me this; why does it matter where the
President was all evening and what he was doing, and better yet how does knowing
this make any of our embassies safer today?If knowing where the
President was and what he was doing doesn't make embassies and ambassadors
safer then this is all political nothing else. Which is exactly the accusation
against the administration used to justify the hearing in the first place. Back in the "good old days"(the Regan years) hearings to
investigate embassy bombings were bi-partisan (democrats being the minority)and
held to improve circumstances and processes.
Obama/Hillary blatantly lied to protect himself during a campaign and now his
myopic minions accuse republicans of politicizing the issue?Leftists
destroy their own credibility.
@Schnee "...why do you keep using them to try and get political
gain?"I have nothing to gain from this, other than finding out
the truth. Why are you defending lies and stonewalling?"...some
of the questions being asked in these comments were answered years ago."Okay, answer me this: where was the President all evening, and what was
he doing?@UT BritI didn't know Sean Smith, but from
what I know about him, he would want the truth to be known.
@NateI actually knew Sean Smith, we spoke often on a forum we both
belonged to. I am 100% sure the last thing he would want is for a republican
committee to pointlessly drag these things up.
@Nate"I hope you will come to learn over the course of the
investigation that the names and families of Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods,
Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith are held in high regard by most Americans."Yes, so why do you keep using them to try and get political gain? Read
the senate select committee report for crying out loud... some of the questions
being asked in these comments were answered years ago.
It WAS a "campaign issue" when it happened (because it happened during
the Presidential campaign, and they knew ANY failure in foreign affairs would
come up in the Presidential debates). But the election is over now.
It's time to take a look at it without the campaign pressure now... before
we are in the NEXT election.IF we air it completely NOW...
there's a chance it won't still be an issue when the next election
comes around.It's in everybody's best interest to get this
all out in the open NOW... Not rehash it later when Clinton is trying to be
President.If we get EVERYTHING out in the open now... we can avoid a
big ugly election surprise (which the media loves to spring).
@The Real Maverick "I bet they couldn't even tell you any of the names
of those who were killed!"What you're doing here is called
projection. I hope you will come to learn over the course of the investigation
that the names and families of Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty,
and Sean Smith are held in high regard by most Americans. Your expectation that
their names would not be known is itself rather telling.
"It advises the U.N. ambassador to focus on an anti-Islam Internet video,
thus contradicting the perennial White House claim that Rice's
blame-the-video five-show fable came just from intelligence community talking
points and not from a White House in full campaign mode."By
concentrating on the talking points offered by the administration after the
attack tell me just one thing this does to make our current ambassadors and
embassies safer? If you can't say one concrete thing that
would come from this approach to the attacks that makes ambassadors safer you
are just as guilty of politicizing the deaths of 4 Americans as your accusations
against the administration. So don't be climbing on any high ground with
all this it's not a mound it's a political swamp.
If there is a real story to be found here, I think we should pursue it. But I
think it is not unreasonable to also insist on the same requirements the
Republicans demanded when the Democrats tried to pull this same theater less
than 8 years ago with the Bush administration. I think the Republican
committee should insist that everything said will be off the record, as they did
8 years ago. I think the republicans should insist that the White House has
immunity, as they did 8 years ago. I think Republicans should consider
somethings White House secrets, as did Dick Cheney when he was summoned to
explain the discussions he had with oil executives just before the beginning of
hostilities began in Iraq. The conservatives Republicans should grant to the
Democrat administration everything they demanded as conditions to testify to the
then Democrat run House Select Committee. Anything less would be
hypocritical.And at the same time, the Democrats need to be careful
about what they demand before testifying, because when the shoe is on the other
foot, and it will be someday, they will need to grant Republicans the same
concessions they are asking for now.
How to do the hearings right?By ruining Hillary's chances of
becoming President.We all know that is what the right wing wants out
of these. I bet they couldn't even tell you any of the names of those who
WASHINGTON — The Democrats are portraying the not-yet-even constituted
House Select Committee on Benghazi as nothing but a partisan exercise.========= If it walks like a duck Swims like a dick, and QUACKS like a duck...It's a duck!
It is abundantly clear that the democrats are infinitely more concerned what was
said in the aftermath than about the "4 dead Americans".That
is why they lied.
This story still needs to be addressed. There are so many unanswered questions.
This is a corruption issue, not a campaign issue. The same can be
said for the terrorist kidnapping in Nigeria. The campaign issues
are:17.6 Trillion in debt, and and still erupting like a volcanoLack of jobs in the USAPeople giving up on finding jobs and
accepting socialism crumbs, instead of seeking vibrant life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.The undermining effects of no job prospects on
our young people, coupled with the disintegration of the families they come
from, causing them to give up on school and life.Massive political
corruption in the IRS.Offer ideas to solve these issues and you will
have a campaign on your hands.But that said, Benghazi matters
because national integrity matters.
"But the country deserves the truth. They'll get it if the GOP can keep
the proceedings clean, factual and dispassionate. No speeches. No grandstanding.
Gowdy has got to be a tough disciplinarian — especially toward his own
side of the aisle."-----------------------Amen!The stonewalling from one party in the face of grandstanding by too many of
the people from the other party is the kind of behavior that has kept me from
joining any political party.I want to know **the truth**!! Nothing
more, nothing less.
The right is rapidly losing all credibility on the issue of Benghazi.
Krauthammer and his ilk are in a losing battle to outrage the American populous
by parsing every word of Whitehouse press releases, and by creating intricate
time lines that "prove" that Hillary and Obama are part of some grand
conspiracy.In addition they have lost all sense of proportionality,
sitting on their collective hands after 9-11 while going ballistic after the
unfortunate attack on our Benghazi embassy.
For the people pushing these 'hearings', the only way to do them right
is going to be to throw as much of anything that they can at Hillary Clinton,
and see if that has an effect.
There is consequences.
It is abundantly clear that the GOP is infinitely more concerned on what was
said in the aftermath than about the "4 dead Americans"The
bottom line is that the hard right wants desperately to believe that Romney lost
because Benghazi was not called a "terror attack" by Susan Rice. The whole Benghazi issue has been blown way out of proportion. Even the
GOP's worst case scenario on Benghazi is just not that big of a deal. Sorry, but it just isn't.