Thread: Another US Embassy Under Siege

Originally Posted by Humbert

And where is the proof of a conspiracy and cover-up that will lead to impeachment?

excellent point.

the republican controlled house has held so many hearing on this, yet nothing has come of it.

absolutely nothing....except for fox successfully whipping the usual suspects into a frenzy based on less than half-truths.

wake me when they produce a smoking gun.

As a gentle reminder to those low-information posters, here again is Piano Legs' Big Benghazie Lie:



At time 6:12 is where she references the INTERNET VIDEO that caused the attack.

"We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless and totally unacceptable."

Hillary Clinton lied, Rice lied, Barack Obama lied, Jay Carney lied, the Obama administration lied. The men in Libya were left to die as military forces were told to stand down.

Doesn't sound like coverup to me? Move along now, nothing to see here!

^So far you are batting 0 on all your impeachment predictions. I'm confident this one will end the same way. With egg on your face.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by koman

Benghazi on the other hand was a case of what amounts to US territory being attacked by a foreign enemy. People were killed and in way the US was publicly humiliated.

and the 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13 americans during the bush administration? do you have any outrage about that?

thought not.

If you are going to ask me a question, please do me the honor of letting me answer it instead of answering it yourself.......seems fair..yes?

Why would you even suggest that there was no "outrage" over the bush era attacks? The whole "war on terror" thing was launched because of the ongoing attacks....with 9/11 being the last straw. The perps of those attacks were quietly hunted down and eliminated where possible. Those attacks were sudden and unexpected and there was as far as I can recall, no unusually high threat levels that would require unusually high security levels at the time. Of course Bush is constantly castigated for hitting back...so it's a case of damned if you do; damned if you don't.

Not only that, but I don't recall Bush or anyone else in his administration running around making excuses for the attacks and trying to pin them on some dumbfuck video event....or trying to cover up or make excuses for anything. In fact he was quite bombastic about the whole situation... ..Obama behaves like Wili E. Coyote after the Roadrunner has pushed him off a cliff.....

Benghazie was totally different. It was a consulate left virtually undefended in an area of known hostility with a threat level high enough to cause others (like the UK) to close down their facilities and pull out....and yet security levels were reduced to token level, and when requests were made to have them re-instated, they were refused. Then when the attack began, no help was sent...and help was available within reasonable striking distance. All it takes is a phone call.

I don't actually blame Obama and dear Hillary. To be honest, if I fucked up something that badly, I'd try to cover my ass too.......it's just politics FFS....and there's an election to be won.....a dead Ambassador here and there can't be allowed to interfere with a good election tour....or a good golfing day.

Once again, we don't know all of the facts. There is much that is unclear; but the facts that we do know, don't make the WH and it's faithful minions look very good.

Originally Posted by Humbert

^ If that's proof of an impeachable offense you are truly living in an alternate reality. Sad old spambot.

Heh...you are the epitome of a low-information poster.

We need members of Congress to step up to the plate and do what is required to remove this tyrant from the White House.

Originally Posted by sabang

Well, Solyndra and Watergate were both described as 'bigger than Watergate'.

Huh? Not sure you're not exaggerating there but we'll let that slid.

The problem is with with both examples (we're sure you meant operation gun-runner (Fast & Furious) instead of a second Watergate) there's been quite an effective cover-up + Congress hasn't stepped up to the plate and put the Obama Administration toes to the fire. Whussies the lot of them aside from Issa...

If you wanna hear them saying it, watch the jon stewart clip- it's funny.

So Boner, like Bombs-Away-McCain and Li'l Lindsey Graham (who, if he isn't satisfied, keeps threatening to take the bullet out of his shirt pocket)--all have their panties in a wad over whether or not an early e-mail described the attack on the embassy as a "terrorist attack" or and attack by "Islamic extremists". Boner claims he hasn't seen the communique, wants it released to the public and won't rest, man of principle that he is, until it is released.

Well....

A spokesman for Mr. Boehner, Brendan Buck, said the speaker had not seen the e-mail; the State Department has allowed lawmakers to view it but has not publicly released it. Mr. Boehner has cast that as a breach of Mr. Obama’s promise to cooperate with Congress.
Mr. Ventrell said the State Department had provided Congress with 25,000 pages of documents related to Benghazi. Other officials pointed out that the e-mail, which is unclassified, was clearly available to members, given that they were quoting it in hearings.
None of this mollified Mr. Boehner.
“If there’s clear evidence that the administration knew this event was a terrorist attack immediately, yet told the world a different story for weeks, that document needs to be made public,” Mr. Buck said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/politics/benghazi-debate-focuses-on-interpretation-of-early-e-mail-on-attackers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&partner=rss&emc=r ss

They have nothing...Nothing.... And yet they persist in this mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill politics. They would go screaming down in flames, but I think the public has seen through it and isn't paying any attention.

Originally Posted by koman

Not only that, but I don't recall Bush or anyone else in his administration running around making excuses for the attacks and trying to pin them on some dumbfuck video event....or trying to cover up or make excuses for anything. In fact he was quite bombastic about the whole situation...

Bush/Cheney wanted to go to war. Good for business. Makes them feel big and strong. Obama has more sense.

Originally Posted by MrG

Bush/Cheney wanted to go to war. Good for business. Makes them feel big and strong. Obama has more sense.

They can argue till the cows come home over an email or who said what to whom and when......but the following is the real issue. Mr."sensible" Obama and his minions will do everything humanly possible to distract from the real issue because this is where the real failure occurred....and the abrogation of duty......

"Benghazie was totally different. It was a consulate left virtually undefended in an area of known hostility with a threat level high enough to cause others (like the UK) to close down their facilities and pull out....and yet security levels were reduced to token level, and when requests were made to have them re-instated, they were refused. Then when the attack began, no help was sent...and help was available within reasonable striking distance. All it takes is a phone call."

7 man special ops team in Tripoli which is 4 hours away. Sounds like a wink of the eye to me.
Monday morning quarterbacks flailing away.

Originally Posted by Humbert

7 man special ops team in Tripoli which is 4 hours away. Sounds like a wink of the eye to me.
Monday morning quarterbacks flailing away.

Where did you come up with that piece of information. 4 hours?...only 7 men in Tripoli.... Do US special forces get around on Honda waves these days. In any case, that is just part of the failure.....it does not account for the lack of protection in the first place and the repeated failures to provide greater security when asked by the local embassy staff.

If the only protection they were left with was indeed 4 hours away and only 7 guys......that's an even bigger disgrace than I thought.....I just doubt if it's true.....it sounds very much like another part of the excuse and ass covering story.

When the British Ambassadors convoy was attacked previously...US forces managed get there pretty damn quick.....maybe they had Honda PCX150ies that day huh?

Originally Posted by koman

Do US special forces get around on Honda waves these days

The US does not have a military presence in Libya. It is the responsibility of the host country to provide security for diplomatic missions. Tripoli is over 600 kilometres from Benghazi. They do not have Blackhawks waiting for emergencies of this kind in most countries. Oh, and I read today, contrary to what I posted that there were only 4 special ops personal available.

Looks as if the efforts by rethugs and Fox News are falling apart.

Fox News ignored congressional testimony that confirmed military leadership ordered a small team of troops to remain in Tripoli in order to protect embassy staff there from possible threats during the September 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, instead baselessly speculating that the president must have personally told the force to "stand down."
During the May 8 congressional hearings on the Benghazi attacks, witness Gregory Hicks -- who was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks -- explained that his team had proposed that a small group of four special forces troops leave Tripoli to provide aid in Benghazi, but that they were not authorized to do so by Special Operations Command Africa, a division of the U.S. military.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, diplomats on the ground the night of the attacks had learned of new threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to U.S. News that the assessment of Special Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security.

Fox Ignores Benghazi Witness Testimony Proving Obama Did Not Order Troops To "Stand Down" | Blog | Media Matters for America

Originally Posted by Humbert

Jon Stewart gets it perfect again.

what????
Watergate+Iran Contra x 10 = Benghazi
I am convinced now
impeach Obama,
impeach Clinton,
this is a shame....

^^^
Yes....the local authorities are normally responsible for the protection of foreign embassy and consular premises and staff. That is the convention and in most
"normal" situations it would be considered adequate.

Libya however was in the aftermath of a civil war, with no real functioning government and radical militia groups roaming freely. This is hardly a situation where the US should have been trusting the locals to take care of business, now is it?

It appears that there is no limit to the amount of waffling and bullshit some people will put up with from the current POTUS and his minions. Yes Jon Stewart can make a good comedy skit out of the whole thing.....but he is a professional comedian FFS. Are the liberal left now so out of ammo that they have to rely on TV comedians to make their case. Jesus H. Christ... Jon Stewart poking fun at Fox news is the new defence team for the WH... talk about deflection and avoidance of the issues.

Anyhow, here is some stuff from a State Dept review published back in Dec 2012.

"A State Department review board investigating the Sept. 11 attacks on American facilities in Benghazi found leadership and management failures in the department for not providing adequate security prior to the attack.
“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department … resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” an unclassified version of the report made public Tuesday night stated.

Security was lacking in Benghazi and officials in both Washington and Libya failed to recognize the dangers in the country.
According to the report, security forces at the compound were identified as a militia group called the February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade that the report said included Islamist elements. Unarmed security contractors from a company called Blue Mountain Libya also proved inadequate against the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing,” the report said, adding that investigators found “a pervasive realization” by U.S. personnel that security of the mission “was not a high priority for Washington.”

The report also said that in the weeks and months prior to the attack there was “a deteriorating security situation” in Libya that was reliant on an “armed but poorly skilled” militia and unarmed contractors.

Additionally, the report said the militia in charge of security showed “troubling indicators” that the group was not protecting diplomatic vehicles due to protests over salary and working hours.

Yes, this is all very funny...no wonder Mr, Stewart did such a good job on it......

(So the USA was relying on a bunch of virtually untrained militia who were pissed off about their pay and working conditions, to guard their embassy staff in the middle of a virtual war zone........brilliant.....promotions all round)

It seems to me that the Obama groupies are more interested in slamming FOX news and promoting satirical TV skits poking fun at the GOP than actually finding out why the place got over-run and the staff killed....after all the warnings and requests for more security. This was a total failure by the people who were responsible for providing proper protection for their diplomatic staff....period. You can waffle and spin that any way you like but it was a total fuckup that cost 4 lives......great to see that the Libbie's favorite comedian finds that so amusing.

Originally Posted by koman

It appears that there is no limit to the amount of waffling and bullshit some people will put up with from the current POTUS and his minions. Yes Jon Stewart can make a good comedy skit out of the whole thing.....but he is a professional comedian FFS. Are the liberal left now so out of ammo that they have to rely on TV comedians to make their case. Jesus H. Christ... Jon Stewart poking fun at Fox news is the new defence team for the WH... talk about deflection and avoidance of the issues.

You have it exactly wrong. It is not about avoiding issues and culpablity. It is about hyper-partisan republicans spinning the whole sorry episode into a political weapon to undermine Obama and damage Clinton, who is currently the front runner as the Democratic presidential candidate. It is about republicans not satisfied with the parties responsible learning from their errors and making improvements going forward but rather comparing the episode to Watergate and raising the threat of impeachment without any proof of a conspiracy or cover-up.
A comedian pointed out the absurdity and hypocrisy of the situation perfectly - good for him.

The republicans dark Obama obsession is the problem.

"Before Wednesday’s hearing on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, Republicans in Congress promised explosive new details about the administration’s mishandling of the episode. Instead, the hearing showed, yet again, that sober fact-finding is not their mission. Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The attack on the lightly protected consulate in Benghazi in September that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was a tragic event, and Americans should know the full story. The most authoritative account, completed in December, came from an independent inquiry, led by two respected and now retired officials — Thomas Pickering, a former deputy secretary of state, and Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Their report was unsparing in concluding that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” in the State Department’s bureaus of diplomatic security and near eastern affairs resulted in a “security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for the security failures when she testified at a Congressional hearing in January.

Wednesday’s hearing, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican of California who is chairman of the House oversight committee, featured three witnesses who testified about those failures. One of them, Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 official at the American Embassy in Tripoli, was at the embassy the night of the Benghazi attack. He said he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled, a charge the State Department denied.

The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.

The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible.

The Senate should move quickly to confirm the ambassador, Deborah Jones, whose hearing was Tuesday.

Congress and the Obama administration also need to pay more attention to what’s happening in Libya in general. After helping opposition forces oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the United States seems to have lost interest. That is a huge mistake as militias threaten the country’s democratic transition and stability. That surely is not an outcome that Ambassador Stevens would have wanted. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/op...ession.html?hp

When bonehead starts calling Clinton "old piano legs" in every post, you know your argument is won. Bonehead, you are a geriatric juvenile.

Originally Posted by Humbert

The republicans dark Obama obsession is the problem.

"Before Wednesday’s hearing on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, Republicans in Congress promised explosive new details about the administration’s mishandling of the episode. Instead, the hearing showed, yet again, that sober fact-finding is not their mission. Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The attack on the lightly protected consulate in Benghazi in September that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was a tragic event, and Americans should know the full story. The most authoritative account, completed in December, came from an independent inquiry, led by two respected and now retired officials — Thomas Pickering, a former deputy secretary of state, and Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Their report was unsparing in concluding that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” in the State Department’s bureaus of diplomatic security and near eastern affairs resulted in a “security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for the security failures when she testified at a Congressional hearing in January.

Wednesday’s hearing, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican of California who is chairman of the House oversight committee, featured three witnesses who testified about those failures. One of them, Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 official at the American Embassy in Tripoli, was at the embassy the night of the Benghazi attack. He said he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled, a charge the State Department denied.

The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.

The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible.

The Senate should move quickly to confirm the ambassador, Deborah Jones, whose hearing was Tuesday.

Congress and the Obama administration also need to pay more attention to what’s happening in Libya in general. After helping opposition forces oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the United States seems to have lost interest. That is a huge mistake as militias threaten the country’s democratic transition and stability. That surely is not an outcome that Ambassador Stevens would have wanted. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/op...ession.html?hp

When bonehead starts calling Clinton "old piano legs" in every post, you know your argument is won. Bonehead, you are a geriatric juvenile.

Very good Humberto......so now we have Jon Stewart's comedy skit, and a NY Times opinion piece as the final word on the subject...... now, that's the way to get things cleared up, without any fallout.

Hillary meekly accepts "responsibility" after the inquiry found: " that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” in the State Department’s bureaus of diplomatic security and near eastern affairs resulted in a “security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

Obama has never accepted a single iota of responsibility for anything......oh wait....when they killed OBL....he was gushing about how "I authorized".....I...I..I....everything was "I"...... listening to that speech you would almost think he had dropped into the compound and shot the cnut himself.... Now we have a confirmed clusterfuck in the area of diplomatic security resulting in the death of his Ambassador and 3 others...and there is not a single "I" to be found anywhere.

Yes there are elements in the GOP that have a kind of "dark" Obsession about Obama and sometimes they can go a bit overboard with the rhetoric.....but that's normal political shit. Opposition parties are always going after the boss of the other side. We have to put that aside and look at the facts instead of sugar coating every cockup and attempted cover-up.

In a way that's the job of opposition...to keep the government's feet the fire. If you fuck up to this extent in politics (esp at the very top level) the competition is going to roast your ass. Richard Nixon found that out.....and all that was just about a little bit of burglary....no casualties...even the furniture was not disturbed.....
That's why some people are saying Benghazi was worse than Watergate.......you Marxist types do understand the difference between burglary and attacking a consulate, burning it down and killing folks......I trust??

Do you seriously think Obama and Hillary really believed in that video bullshit 2 weeks after the event? If not, why were they still spouting off about it.....telling the press and the public blatant lies to cover up their failure to perform, if the truth be told.............and FFS don't start going on about GW Bush again.....he's been gone for years....he's golfing and painting pictures down in Texas don't ya know...

Who gives a flying fcuk. This issue is a dead horse. After the teabaggers in the house get done sticking their chicken chests out this issue will be quickly forgotten and once again boontard will be left with egg on his face.

Originally Posted by koman

you Marxist types

Really Koman, I thought you were above this kind of ad-hominem shit.
It's political. The Pickering report, which you are quoting, offers a scathing criticism of the events surrounding the Benghazi attack. Clinton has taken responsiblility. Now what are you after?
What's the difference between Watergate and Benghazi? The constitution. Obstruction of justice in the form of the president instructing the Attorney General to lie and destroy evidence. Where was your sanctimonious breast beating when Valerie Plame was outed to the media by Dick Cheney and presidential privilige was invoked to keep documents out of the hands of investigators? Where was your outrage when 11 consulates were attacked under Bush's watch? Where was your hand wringing when the Bush intelligence officials ignored warnings of 9/11?