whembly wrote:
Ah... my mistake seb.

 whembly wrote:

This guy here... Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee yesterday, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

This guy here... Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee yesterday, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.

That isn't what he said. He said that the military knew it was a hostile action, and not a protest "...gone awry...".

Are you honestly going to misrepresent your own sources just to force a tired point?

 whembly wrote:

Um... what on Elvis' bunghole are you talking about?

EDIT: you objecting the "Terrorist Attack" line, when I should've stated "hostile action"???

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Um... what on Elvis' bunghole are you talking about?

EDIT: you objecting the "Terrorist Attack" line, when I should've stated "hostile action"???

I am saying that your interpretation of Lovell's words is wrong, on its face.

“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”

“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”

 Asherian Command wrote:
You know. I find it funny how politicians are using Benghazi as a international crime against the president.

You know ignoring the fact that we have people dying.

IT also seems to be that this is entirely the republician side.

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

In fact most often it is not even as large as an issue as the foreign affairs issues we currently have. I've read the reports. And I think the Republican party is assuming too much on too little of evidence.

I've started watching this happen for a while. Anything small or inconvenient that the republicans see as something bad that the President did is immediately a great time to attack, like dogs for a dinner. even if it wasn't his fault.

Last time I checked you did not attack Eisenhower for the murder of innocent people by american soldiers during world war 2. We did not blame bush for killing innocent civilians because of some crazy soldier went on a gun rampage.

We can see that the Secretary of State admitted that it was her fault. She admitted she did something wrong, or one of her subordinates did.

“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”

It was not a terrorist attack. It was a hostile action.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Also I would like to think that the politicians on both sides need to be retaught political science and what that actually means to be a politician.

 Jihadin wrote:
I have to seriously have to hand to Hillary to leave Obama strap hanging big time on this

 whembly wrote:

He said:

“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”

How am I wrong again?

 whembly wrote:

If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...

 Asherian Command wrote:
Lots of stuff.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...

That is a horrible precedent to set, and I suspect that it would do no good at all because the people it would be relevant to (you) wouldn't believe the state was completely forthcoming.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

He said:

“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”

How am I wrong again?

Lovell specifically mentions that the military was immediately aware that the event was a hostile action, and then goes on to say that the facts lead to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.

This does not mean the military immediately knew it was a terrorist attack. In fact, it means precisely the opposite of that.

 whembly wrote:

If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...

That is a horrible precedent to set, and I suspect that it would do no good at all because the people it would be relevant to (you) wouldn't believe the state was completely forthcoming.

 Ouze wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...

That is a horrible precedent to set, and I suspect that it would do no good at all because the people it would be relevant to (you) wouldn't believe the state was completely forthcoming.

Are you implying that if the President would just release his birth certificate, that they would just start saying it was photoshopped and he's still a Kenyan? Sir, have you no decency? How dare you imply bad faith! These are just honest Americans with no agenda asking simple questions, and to whom a simple answer would forever end the matter with no goalpost moving at all.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi rebuffed calls from her party for Democrats to boycott a newly announced Benghazi investigation, saying Tuesday that the so-called select committee should have bipartisan members.

"If this review is to be fair, it must be truly bipartisan," Pelosi said in a written statement.

She went a step further, calling for the committee to be "equally divided between Democrats and Republicans as is done on the House Ethics Committee."

It's unclear whether Republican leaders would agree to that request. Republicans pointed out that despite Pelosi's call for an equally divided panel, the breakdown of a prior select committee on climate change, engineered by the California Democrat, included nine Democrats and six Republicans.

Details of the proposed Benghazi committee have not yet been released, except for Monday's decision to name Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., as chairman. A formal vote to establish the investigative committee is expected by the end of the week.

On Sunday, Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff called for fellow Democrats to sit out the investigation.

"I think it's a colossal waste of time," Schiff told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate."

Pelosi reiterated complaints from others in her party that there have already been several investigations, including "four partisan reviews" in the House.

But she signaled she does want members of her party on the panel. "It should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair," she said.

Republican leaders say the select committee, something long called for by rank-and-file members, is now necessary after emails surfaced last week showing additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of the Benghazi attacks. One email stressed the role of an anti-Islam video, though the White House claims this was in reference to other protests in the region.

Gowdy told Fox News on Monday that he is going to examine "every single solitary, relevant" document on Benghazi so the truth about the attacks can be determined once and for all.

Gowdy, R-S.C., said on "On the Record" he is going to examine any and all documents relating to the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate, even those which may end up not even being relevant.

"You can't draw conclusions if you don't have all the facts," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said. "What this committee is going to do is once and for all lay out all the facts and then your jury can draw whatever inferences and conclusions they want to."

Gowdy also responded to criticism of the committee by House Democrats including Schiff. Gowdy said the committee's detractors need to give it a chance to prove its usefulness before declaring it pointless.

"At least let us have a hearing before you judge it. I mean at least let the committee be constituted and the rules be adopted before you declare it to be a political exercise," he said.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

He didn't get impeached for a having a BJ, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. Perjury, oddly, is not to be taken lightly.

Perjury is ridiculously difficult to prosecute...so, there were pretty damning evidences against Clinton.

I'll say it again... I really don't believe what happened in Benghazi is an "impeachable" offence.

I think the whole thing is a clusterfeth and the administration was embarrassed. Hence the ridiculous initial response to blaming the attacks on that Youtube director.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So make it a standing rule that all investigations are bi-partisan

 whembly wrote:

So you want to quibble about the fething meaning of "immediate"??

 whembly wrote:

They knew that it was a terrorist attack when they felt they had all the necessary information. No protest whatsoever as it was a sophisticated coordinated attack.

Point being, the administration KNEW it was not spawned from any protest and calculated that it was a political problem.

 whembly wrote:

If it's really a nuthingburger... the folks like me would have eggs on our faces. So why not take that opportunity to do so?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....

He didn't get impeached for a having a BJ, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. Perjury, oddly, is not to be taken lightly.

Perjury is ridiculously difficult to prosecute...so, there were pretty damning evidences against Clinton.

I'll say it again... I really don't believe what happened in Benghazi is an "impeachable" offence.

I think the whole thing is a clusterfeth and the administration was embarrassed. Hence the ridiculous initial response to blaming the attacks on that Youtube director.

Wait whembly you said this?

Huh. I agree they should say we did something wrong. And we are sorry for letting these four Americans die.

But it does not mean we are evil and wanted this to happen.

 Jihadin wrote:
There probably were individuals in positions of importance who took it upon themselves, influencing the "final", product to shield Obama during the re-election. I do not believe Obama gave verbal and/or written/email guidance on "his" version of the attack.

Though one is WRONG if one depends on one source of intel.

 whembly wrote:

PRODUCE the Presidential Daily Briefings that Obama received around 9/11 and this could all be put to rest if they have not done anything wrong.

To play devil's advocate. Lets assume he knew everything and controlleds the situation minute by minute. And?

I think everyone on the planet knows the event was bungled, and then later covered over for election purposes. And?

 easysauce wrote:
My buddy Vilerat died in benghazi... you people who claim it is something to be ignored/not a big deal are somethingawful indeed.


Thank you everyone who actually gives a hoot, I would love it if everyone actually cared about holding people accountable for depicting events like this accuratly, or at the very least, updating those accounts once more info is available.

 Jihadin wrote:

To play devil's advocate. Lets assume he knew everything and controlleds the situation minute by minute. And?

I think everyone on the planet knows the event was bungled, and then later covered over for election purposes. And?

I play Bacchus Advocate then
Who is Obama protecting?

 Frazzled wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
My buddy Vilerat died in benghazi... you people who claim it is something to be ignored/not a big deal are somethingawful indeed.


Thank you everyone who actually gives a hoot, I would love it if everyone actually cared about holding people accountable for depicting events like this accuratly, or at the very least, updating those accounts once more info is available.

Its a big deal to you. I can understand that. Its not a big deal to others.

Again, what would you do about it? Obama's not going anywhere.

Numerous compelling new questions emerged in recent days about the crumbling White House version of the Benghazi tragedy.

They include the faux meme about a "hateful video," who concocted it, why did Obama stick to that fiction so long, why weren't rapid response troops in position on 9/11 of all days, why were U.S. diplomats even in Benghazi after other consuls abandoned the dangerous city, why was Benghazi security reduced in the days leading up to the well-planned terrorist attack and why were Amb. Chris Stevens' security pleas ignored and no rescue attempted?

The upcoming Select House Committee on Benghazi will no doubt pursue these and other lines of obvious inquiry. And the answers will certainly play a large role in 2015-16 politics if, as expected, ex-Secy. of State Hillary Clinton decides to seek her party's nomination.

But for us the most pressing, curious and disturbing question today remains: Where was the Commander-in-Chief and what was he doing during an eight-hour attack that left four government employees unprotected, abandoned and dead?

We know now, thanks to Bret Baier's recent interview with ex-Obama aide Tommy Vietor, that the president was not in the Situation Room, the secure, in-house command post where presidents usually go to oversee crises. Remember the Osama bin Laden assassination-night photo with Obama back in the corner and others riveted to a real-time video screen?

Clinton and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have both said they talked with Obama by phone that awful evening. And Obama's said he ordered all necessary security for American facilities and representatives abroad.

But that's it! Nothing more.

Not until the next morning when Obama emerged into the Rose Garden with a silent Clinton to denounce the attack, cite the video and vow quick justice to the perpetrators. Then, he flew off to Las Vegas campaign fundraisers before the bodies were cold. Justice remains undelivered 600 days later.

Now, recall the contemporary context: Six weeks out from his reelection. Months into his comforting meme that he had al Qaeda on the run, decimated its leadership and sent Bin Laden to sleep with the fishes.

Mitt Romney was warning that indecision and lack of preparation were great threats to national security. Obama would mock him as uninformed and outdated for his prescient warnings about Russia remaining a strategic foe of the United States.

The last thing the Chicago crowd wanted was terrorism to interrupt its campaign narrative.

Every White House seeks to appear on top of the news and in charge of everything. Especially this one. Yes, Obama was days late recognizing the seriousness of the Gulf oil spill.

But since, not a single snowstorm blusters through, not the smallest flood flows by, every landslide, school shooting, even earthquakes that do no damage during an Obama golf game prompt a briefing of this president. We even get details on briefings of Obama about things that haven't yet happened, like wildfire seasons.

When Bin Laden perished, we were treated to a detailed "tick-tock," what every White House knows it must provide Washington media after major events. A minute-by-minute recounting of what the president was doing at the time.

There's no way for even conscientious reporters to check all the hand-fed, self-serving details. So, they are passed on to the public as gospel of how our nation's leader addressed the issue, always with seriousness, deliberation and, in the end, calm decisiveness.

But, curiously, not Benghazi.

Not a word from him on his whereabouts or activities surrounding the murder of the first U.S. ambassador in three decades and three other brave Americans. Vietor can't remember if he changed certain words in Susan Rice's Benghazi talking points. "Dude, that was two years ago!"

But says he's quite sure Obama was somewhere in the residence that night. Obama has said nothing.

Obama's sensitivity to late-night national emergencies is understandable. Clinton scored huge political points in 2008 noting that John McCain had a lifetime of experience in preparation for 3 a.m. crisis calls. As did she. But Obama had only an anti-Iraq war speech from 2002.

This president does love speech-making, often on minute public issues. Why the suspicious silence on his Benghazi doings?

So, let's turn the question around:
What could President Barack Hussein Obama have possibly been doing that deadly night, what could his physical and mental condition have been that's so terrible and shocking that the know-everything chief executive would rather Americans think he was asleep at the national security switch?

That's something to awaken any American at 3 a.m. -- or earlier.

 Frazzled wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
My buddy Vilerat died in benghazi... you people who claim it is something to be ignored/not a big deal are somethingawful indeed.

Its a big deal to you. I can understand that. Its not a big deal to others.

Again, what would you do about it? Obama's not going anywhere.

 LordofHats wrote:

the United States' single largest intelligence failure of her 200+ year history

I don't know man. Billy Mitchells was all like "yo I think the Japanese gonna bomb pearl harbor on a sunday morning and then they're totally gonna invade the Philippines" and everyone else was like "lolwut?"

He said it in 1921.