Benghazi - Wing Nuts Want a Conspiracy So badly.....

OK! Then the topic as in the OP is Benghazi (Watergate and Iran). I did not bring up Iraq. I did not run off with the insults.

So back to Benghazi/Watergate. You have no comment on the lies that have been propagated from the administration?

 

Benghazi Again

By Joe KleinMay 08, 20131524 Comments

​

Esam Al-Fetori / REUTERS​

A protester reacts as the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States September 11, 2012.​

​

The Republicans, apparently with nothing better to do, are still chasing their tails over the tragic events in Benghazi on September 11.​

Actually, no. That’s not true. They’re chasing their tails over what happened after the tragic events of September 11. They’re mostly concerned that the Obama Administration tried to cover up the fact that this was a terrorist attack by a local militia (translation: local street gang) which aspired toward bad-butt Al Qaeda status. This is a pretty hard sell since, the day after the attack, the President called it an “act of terror.”
It does seem that the Administration’s talking points were massaged a bit after the President’s candor. This may have been attributable to the presidential campaign and the Administration’s desire to low-ball the Al Qaeda threat. If so, this was a venial, not a mortal, sin. It affected not one life. More likely, though, the wording was scrubbed as a result of the nature of the investigation going on at the time–it may have been deemed premature to announce that it was a pre-meditated act of terror. Perhaps the local militia lucked into a situation where they showed up at the consulate and found very little security protection. Hard to say. There were protests all over the middle east that night, ginned up by jihadis using the excuse of a near-unseen anti-Muslim You Tube video.
But let’s say the street gang had been casing the joint in advance. Who’s to blame for the lax security? This is the real substance of the case. Could it have been the Secretary of State? Undoubtedly, no. This sort of question is well below her pay grade. Could it have been the person in charge of embassy security issues? More likely, and that person resigned after the subsequent investigations…and even that might have been unfair for two reasons. Security was up to the Ambassador and Chris Stevens was well known for erring on the side of greater public access to U.S. facilities. Or, more plausibly, reason number two…
Could it have been the Republicans who consistently voted against funds for increased embassy security? Hmmm…that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn’t it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But one does wonder why the Republicans tend to fix on issues like this, which are defined by their absence of substance. (I haven’t noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security–which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)
In fact, the Republicans are now, according to the Washington Post, back in their standard dilatory mode when it comes to producing a budget agreement because–wait for it–things are going pretty well in the deficit department. With recovery, there are higher tax revenues (up 16%) and lower government payouts for services to the unemployed, and the deficits are melting away. So the Republicans believe that they’ve lost their leverage to reduce government spending.
Reducing government spending–rather than speeding a recovery–was always the Republican intent. The evidence was just too overwhelming that reducing spending in a recession retarded, rather than speeded, a recovery. What the current, intellectually limited GOP really care about is: government spending=wasting money on the poor. Everything else is flummery and encrustation.
The sad thing here is that the Republicans are right, in part, about government spending. It is wasteful. There are far more efficient ways to do Medicare that would produce a better health care system for the elderly. Social Security disability is slouching toward scamdom. The Veterans Administration is a 19th century bureaucratic disaster. Unemployment benefits and food stamps should require some sort of return service from recipients. The list goes on…But rather than address the substance of those problems–problems that Democrats don’t seem very interested in solving–they obsess on the stupid: fixing on more-or-less budget debates, federal dictatorship fantasies and meaningless political ploys like Benghazi.
I suspect they won’t be a viable political party until they begin to focus on substance rather than emptiness.

​

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/benghazi-again/#ixzz2Sjqf8kwk​

 

Now there is an understatement. Now the next question is who and why.

 

The scary part is that if Romney had been elected, we'd be fighting in Australia right now.

 

What lies? They warned the admin they were inadequately prepared for anything that might go down. They requested more troops and support. The admin stated, based on SD reports, that what they had was adequate. It wasn't. They died. What was the lie exactly?

 

Back to the topic - WHO and WHY!

 

You really want me to rehash the scenario? We had no forewarning - they did. It was only because of the film - wrong. We could not get help to them - wrong! They did not ask me for additional protection - wrong! And on and on and on ......

 

If we all know all this, how could anyone be lying about it? Either the admin released the info to us, of the dead wrote a memoir. So, who lied about what exactly?

 

That is exactly why they are hold those hearings today. They might even manage to get a couple straight answers. However, I will bet that the straight answers will not be coming from "the administration".

 

Oh! And further today Jay Carney "the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and not substantive." Can't they figure out that they are just digging deeper?

 

No, they can't. When we have a Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-President and a lying Secretary of State (remember "Old Sniper Fire Hillary") we're going to have stupidity like this. I don't think either one of them could find their ass from a hole in the ground. Unfortunately, they hold peoples' lives in their hands (as witnessed in Benghazi). Obama should have stayed in Hawaii smoking pot every day and Hillary should have stayed in Arkansas shredding papers. They're fools and anyone who follows them is a fool, too.

 

"The Obama administration is telling so many lies about Benghazi and its aftermath, they make Nigerian phone scammers look like paragons of integrity." -Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.)

 

Well, the 11th Benghazi hearing was just, so, so, well, no different than the other 10 hearings. But this one was a game changer oh boy! We now know.....NOTHING we didn't already know. This was clearly the most politicized anti-Hillary Clinton hearing of them all. Smearing people is all these hearings accomplish and this one has the added benefit of dragging the victim's families through another emotional spectacle for nothing more than political hay. How sad the GOP is.

 

Oh Ya! Another book salesman. Hope he sells a lot of books.

 

Then, perhaps you could tell me why the FBI did not show up in Benghazi until 23 days after the terrorism.
I also found it interesting that Clinton was informed directly - the night of the attacks - that is was terrorism by Al Qaeda by the person in charge of Libya at the time. Yet somehow she managed to forget that as did Obama and Rice.

 

Here is my take once again. By entertaining yet another round of "Benghazi is going to bring down this president" and then watching the wing nuts frothing at the mouth, I feel that by responding at all to any of their posts just lends them an undeserved level of credibility. This is the Clinton/Lewinsky thing all over again. While Clinton did have an extramarital affair, that is not illegal. He was found guilty of lying about the affair after Republicans spent millions of investigations that basically were witch hunts. Again, they are spending millions of our tax dollars to further their political agenda to try and bring down a twice elected president and prevent another popular Democrat from winning the next election.
I know that only the wing nuts see these posts and they can neither hear these words nor will they bother reading it in the first place, but when all is said and done and our 25th hearing is concluded, nothing will have changed except that our country in general will be a little more degraded by those cynical wing nuts that are on their way out anyway and care nothing for this country.

 

Little Joe, why don't you go sit in a corner? You're making a fool of yourself. There is another Benghazi hearing only because whistle-blowers have come forward. Or don't you understand that? If it's revealed that our president or the Sec of State screwed up, do you NOT want to know that? I realize that such a revelation might be disconcerting for you, but there are people who would like to know the truth. Getting the truth out of this administration is like pulling teeth, but it can be done. It's called "persistence".

 

Little Joe, you really made me laugh with this one. You denigrate a man with a distinguished military service career and poke fun because he writes books. Really... BOOKS? Do you have something against books? Little Joe, books are your friends. Try reading one sometime. However, try something other than children's books, The Communist Manifesto and Hustler.

Little Joe, books are for reading, not burning:

View attachment 1627

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/13399/

 

I can only hope you guys were this passionate about Beirut when Reagan essentially killed 241 marines in their barracks under the same circumstances. For some reason, I don't think you were.

 

I guess I am missing something here. Just what facts do you think were covered up in Beirut? And just what did "you guys" do when Nixon tried to cover-up Watergate?

If Obama/Clinton had come out and said "I/we screwed up. Sorry. It will not happen again", I would not have liked it, but it would have ended quickly. With all the lies and cover-up, he keeps digging himself a hole and he is/ought to wind up just like Nixon. It is not the act, per se. I more or less expected that or similar from the idiots in charge. Now that they have covered up the actual facts and events apparently for nothing more than to facilitate his reelection, I think they deserve the same results as Nixon, Stewart, Mitchel, Halderman, etc.