Never Forget Benghazi!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Now what I am interested on what Hillary was doing, or at least her subordinates.

Neither concern is addressed in the article you cited, and it is also a terrible article.

"...the Chicago crowd..." Really? That narrative was played out long ago.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Now what I am interested on what Hillary was doing, or at least her subordinates.

Neither concern is addressed in the article you cited, and it is also a terrible article.

"...the Chicago crowd..." Really? That narrative was played out long ago.

What? Doesn't Chicago has it's own distinctive brand of politics?

Fine... here's a opinion from a Democratic pundit:

Kirsten Powers: Diverting Benghazi probe

The White House asked for this investigation by not telling the truth in the first place.

"Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. ...Why aren't we talking about something else?" House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week.

Here's why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs. He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration's response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won't end well.

Though White House officials say they were operating on the best intelligence available, they were willfully ignoring information that the attack was preplanned by groups with terrorist links, a fact that undermined President Obama's re-election claim that "al-Qaeda is on the run." Cherry-picking intelligence is a big no-no.

It took real effort for the White House to overlook the tsunami of evidence that contradicted its campaign talking points. Before Rice's appearances on Sept. 16, 2012, National Public Radio reported that Libya's president had told NPR that al-Qaeda was responsible for the "precalculated, preplanned attack." Former deputy CIA director Mike Morell testified last month, "Analysts said from the get-go that al-Qaeda was involved."

A former deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, testified last year his "jaw dropped" when he watched Rice blame the video. Retired general Robert Lovell, on duty at U.S. Africa Command at the time, testified last week, "What we did know ... was that this was a hostile action … a terrorist attack." Last week, Fox News' Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were "guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there." So much for operating on the best intelligence. [whembly: !!!]

White House spokesman Jay Carney improbably claimed that the Rhodes advice was not "explicitly" about Benghazi but about protests throughout the Middle East. CNN's Jake Tapper called Carney's comments "dissembling, obfuscating and … insulting." He was being generous. Rice was dispatched to discuss Benghazi, which is why she was grilled about it on every show.

White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask.

Indeed Kirsten... indeed.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

What? Doesn't Chicago has it's own distinctive brand of politics?

Every city has its own distinctive brand of politics but the phrase "Chicago crowd" is one which has repeatedly been trotted out against Obama, and anyone who doesn't actively oppose his actions, when the speaker had no argument except "Lol, Obama!"

whembly wrote:

Indeed Kirsten... indeed.

To quote Frazz: And?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

What? Doesn't Chicago has it's own distinctive brand of politics?

Every city has its own distinctive brand of politics but the phrase "Chicago crowd" is one which has repeatedly been trotted out against Obama, and anyone who doesn't actively oppose his actions, when the speaker had no argument except "Lol, Obama!"

Eh... I'll buy that. Conversely there is some truth in that... that, it's being used all to often as a lazy shorthand to discredit "x" Chicagoan Politician.

whembly wrote:

Indeed Kirsten... indeed.

To quote Frazz: And?

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

**easysauce**

So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?

I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...

**Frazzled**

easysauce wrote:
So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?

I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...

I think its under the case of "catch me if you can." It would be cool to see the congressional sergeant of arms et al tangle with the Secret Service when they come to physically remand him.

**daedalus**

Asherian Command wrote:

You do not see Marxists or anarchists saying Benghazi was Obama's fault.

To be fair, I usually get immediately bored whenever an anarchist is saying anything to me other than "would you like to make that a large for another 39 cents?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And really, that's boring too. If I WANTED a large, I would have ordered it that way.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

The utter lack of bacon on the menu for munch today.

**Polonius**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

How very, very much republicans hate obama, right?

**d-usa**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?

**Polonius**

d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?

Also, accusing others of "putting politics first," which is always in itself a poltical tactic.

**whembly**

easysauce wrote:
So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?

I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...

Eh... remember, Congress, The Executives and Judiciary are co-equal branch.

Kerry could claim executive privilege

In which case, Congress can then go to a Federal Judge to get a ruling.

Judge could even ask to review the document in question, and release it to Congress as appropriate.

**Polonius**

whembly wrote:
easysauce wrote:
So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?

I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...

Eh... remember, Congress, The Executives and Judiciary are co-equal branch.

Kerry could claim executive privilege

In which case, Congress can then go to a Federal Judge to get a ruling.

Judge could even ask to review the document in question, and release it to Congress as appropriate.

and traditionally, the courts are extremely loath to get into what they call "politcal questions," which an internal message about how to craft policy is. It's also exactly the sort of thing executive privilege is meant to protect.

But, the good congressmen know that. They also know that telling their base "the White House wont' release the documents!" will make them happy.

**Jihadin**

So Obama face with an option on giving up the individual who changed the talking points. That individual who changed the intel being fed to the WH is being protected by the WH. That individual cost four American lives.

Figure I change it up on

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
whembly wrote:
easysauce wrote:
So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?

I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...

Eh... remember, Congress, The Executives and Judiciary are co-equal branch.

Kerry could claim executive privilege

In which case, Congress can then go to a Federal Judge to get a ruling.

Judge could even ask to review the document in question, and release it to Congress as appropriate.

and traditionally, the courts are extremely loath to get into what they call "politcal questions," which an internal message about how to craft policy is. It's also exactly the sort of thing executive privilege is meant to protect.

But, the good congressmen know that. They also know that telling their base "the White House wont' release the documents!" will make them happy.

Yes. This has been prudent in the past and a policy they should keep doing.

**Polonius**

Frazzled wrote:
Yes. This has been prudent in the past and a policy they should keep doing.

Federal Judges enjoy pretending to be above politics too much to force production.

**Jihadin**

I'm hearing flap now that emails are being withheld.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/05/06/white-house-emails-about-fox-news-benghazi-report/

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?

Ironically, that could apply to both sides in the case of Benghazi.

I doubt you meant it that way, though.

**daedalus**

d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?

Gun control godwin?

**Jihadin**

No kids were involved in Benghazi

**Polonius**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.

What is the genuine issue?

That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?

Ironically, that could apply to both sides in the case of Benghazi.

I doubt you meant it that way, though.

Superficially at best. I'm not sure how Democrats are engaging in the issue in any manner other than damage control.

**whembly**

See linky for video...

Gowdy: Benghazi probe could run into '16

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said the special committee he'll lead on Benghazi could continue into the 2016 campaign, when Hillary Clinton might be running for the White House.

Asked about that possibility Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Gowdy said the length of his work would depend on the administration’s level of cooperation.

“It would be shame on us if we intentionally dragged this out for political expediency,” said Gowdy, the special committee's chairman. “On the other hand, if an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”
Clinton is a core figure in the Benghazi story, since she was the secretary of State when terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic annex in Benghazi, Libya. The attack left four Americans dead, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

Some Democrats suspect Republicans want to keep Benghazi in the news to try to hurt Clinton if she runs for the White House in 2016, as expected.

Gowdy said a memo that came to light last week, in which deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes set out “goals” for the administration’s response, but which was not turned over by the administration earlier, was evidence of a cover-up.

He also told host Joe Scarborough that Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell changed the talking points about the attack to shield the administration.

“The memo, I think, is evidence of a cover-up,” Gowdy said. “Joe, you also have to keep in mind every change that Mike Morell made to the talking points sanitized or immunized the administration from criticism.”

Morell has explained the removal of references to al Qaeda from the talking points by testifying that the sources used to connect the attack to al Qaeda-linked groups were classified.

He said his number one question, though, is why warnings before the attack were not heeded: “We were placed on actual notice that Benghazi is a dangerous place, why were we still there?”

Gowdy, for a second day in a row, rejected a Democratic proposal for the new select committee investigating the Benghazi attack to be evenly split between the parties.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has called for the panel to be evenly split, but Republicans have set it at seven GOP members to five Democrats.

“As the president loves to say, ‘Elections have consequences,’ and one of the consequences would be that there are more Republicans in the House than Democrats,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy made it clear during that interview that the scope of this committee won’t be limited to just the post-attack politicization of the event... which is what some folks are complaining about...

Hopefully...we'll get a firmer picture on what the feth was going on in Libya when Gadhafi was overthrown, what Amb. Stevens was doing in Benghazi and probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos?

**Seaward**

Polonius wrote:
Superficially at best. I'm not sure how Democrats are engaging in the issue in any manner other than damage control.

I think knowingly putting out a false narrative in the hopes of keeping it from becoming an election issue would qualify as engaging.

**Polonius**

Seaward wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Superficially at best. I'm not sure how Democrats are engaging in the issue in any manner other than damage control.

I think knowingly putting out a false narrative in the hopes of keeping it from becoming an election issue would qualify as engaging.

Well, I suppose that is the issue, though, right?

I hear words like "political puppet show" and I don't think of the actual problem, I think of the grandstanding surrounding the problem. Of which there is plenty, but pretty limited to one side of the aisle.

And look man, I get how angry you are. How you feel about Benghazi is pretty much how 40% of the country felt for the entire Iraq war.

**Seaward**

Polonius wrote:
I think knowingly putting out a false narrative in the hopes of keeping it from becoming an election issue would qualify as engaging.

Well, I suppose that is the issue, though, right?

I hear words like "political puppet show" and I don't think of the actual problem, I think of the grandstanding surrounding the problem. Of which there is plenty, but pretty limited to one side of the aisle.

And look man, I get how angry you are. How you feel about Benghazi is pretty much how 40% of the country felt for the entire Iraq war.

I'm not at all angry. I fully expect politicians to pull bs like Benghazi. I don't think we could have done anything differently in terms of the actual meaningful (read: military) reaction, though I certainly would have scrambled something out of Aviano just to fly over with wet cans and scare the gak out of people, and who knows, maybe that would've made a difference.

Yes, I expect politicians to try and manage the aftermath. Even lie about it outright, as in this case. But when they happen to hold political views I find abhorrent, I'm all about hoping they get nailed for it each and every time.

**Polonius**

Seaward wrote:
But when they happen to hold political views I find abhorrent, I'm all about hoping they get nailed for it each and every time.

Fair enough. But it really doesn't look like its gonna happen here.

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:
Seaward wrote:
But when they happen to hold political views I find abhorrent, I'm all about hoping they get nailed for it each and every time.

Fair enough. But it really doesn't look like its gonna happen here.

Dunno about that... depends on how Gowdy handles the investigation.

If he goes apegak crazy, then it'll be easy for the Democrats to discredit this.

Rasmussen did a recent poll on this that:

“Seventy-two percent continue to believe that it is important to find out exactly what happened in the Benghazi matter, with 46 percent who say it is Very Important.' Twenty-five percent consider more information about the Benghazi case unimportant, up from 19 percent in January, but that includes just 7 percent who say it is Not At All Important ”

So, it isn't like some vocal minority pushing for this ya know...

**Polonius**

whembly wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Seaward wrote:
But when they happen to hold political views I find abhorrent, I'm all about hoping they get nailed for it each and every time.

Fair enough. But it really doesn't look like its gonna happen here.

Dunno about that... depends on how Gowdy handles the investigation.

If he goes apegak crazy, then it'll be easy for the Democrats to discredit this.

I guess I mean... what will happen? Does Obama have to put his head on his desk for all of the fourth period or something?

What is the goal for the Republicans here, other than try to damage Hilary's chances in 2016?

**dogma**

Polonius wrote:

What is the goal for the Republicans here, other than try to damage Hilary's chances in 2016?

Which isn't actually happening, hilariously enough.