८ मे, २०१३
"House Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Benghazi, Libya."
"The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducts a hearing with Foreign Service officers focusing on information turned over to the committee by administration whistle-blowers on the Benghazi terrorist attacks." Live streaming here — on C-Span3, beginning in a few minutes.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८८७ टिप्पण्या:
887 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»This is not possible. JD (from another thread) has already informed us that Benghazi never happened.
Lets see if Hil lost her presidential thrill on Benghazi Hill.
If Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice were involved, it would be on channels 2, 4, 7, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.
The other channels are carrying the news from Cleveland.... Elijah Cummings is filibustering.
Cummings is a disgrace. He's acting as if when the stand down order was given, they did so because they could not have gotten there in time.
Since the attack was on-going, there was no know end time of the attack, and so no possibility of knowing what would constitute "in time".
Fuck him.
Wherever it leads, Mr. Chairman, wherever it leads.
I'm starting to think that electing African Americans to public office is not in the national interest. They seem incapable of basic logic.
The MSM is laughing at this hearing. Scandal? What constitutes a scandal is defined by the MSM and the MSM has already decided that Benghazi is not a scandal.
Of course, the effort should be made to hold all the facts up for public display – due diligence, the oversight obligation of Congress, etc. And these facts and testimonies will no doubt be helpful to any future historians who care about accuracy. But ain't nothing going to be allowed to cast doubt on Obama or Hillary.
I suspect that the Cleveland incident will trump the Benghazi hearings.
"I suspect that the Cleveland incident will trump the Benghazi hearings."
Benghazi is just a "local story".
If Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice were involved,
Well when they were in power they managed to get 4200 Americans killed and 30,000 wounded in Iraq for no good purpose so I suppose its going to be difficult to get a whole lot of angst worked up over 4 dead in Benghazi.
Rather than focus on the cover-up or bullshit excuse, they should he hammering the Administration as to its decision for Libyan regime change which not only led to those four deaths but now Libya becoming a terrorist haven.
We were told over and over again by Jay Carney and Susan Rice and others inside the Obama administrations that this was all because of a Youtube Video and a spontaneous riot. All a lie.
Hillary response: - "what difference does it make."
No need to investigate when the Democrat party Sacred Cow is involved. We should just hand her the presidency on a silver platter.
James said...
The other channels are carrying the news from Cleveland.... Elijah Cummings is filibustering.
Fox is covering the hearing & testimony live right now. CNN and MSNBC are not covering. No surprise.
Yes, Cummings spoke of veracity .... but cites only very senior leaders who were no where near Benghazi or decision making there about....not to mention they have a political career interest in the false narrative. A classic "first liar doesn't stand a chance" display.
The media must be disappointed that Amanda Berry decided not to make a statement so there's nothing to cover right now in Cleveland. CNN just switched over the the Benghazi hearings but MSNBC is still on the Cleveland story.
You can easily hear and see the passion of Eric Nordstrom as he makes his opening statement.
Stylebook note: Democrats are now in the dock, so whistleblower should be enclosed in "scare quotes".
Matters not what muck is uncovered. The sisterhood will not be stopped! Althouse WILL have her third historic identity ballot to mark in 2016!!
Give 'em Hell, Mr Issa.
We all know where this leads.
Colonel Angus said...
If Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice were involved,
Well when they were in power they managed to get 4200 Americans killed and 30,000 wounded in Iraq for no good purpose
Ah, lessee now...
Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator, maker of aggressive war, and financier and sponsor of terrorism gone.
Al Qaeda gutted and discredited in the Moslem world. *
Iran flanked on both sides. *
Seems like 3 good purposes to me.
* Until the SCOAMF decided he knew better.
Well let's see if they're going to bring down the Obamam administration.
hahahaha....keep trying dutcho...
phx said...
Well let's see if they're going to bring down the Obamam administration.
Speaking for myself...it is NOT about bringing down an administration, it is all about revealing, then eliminating the practice of outright lying at the highest senior ranks. It bleeds down to lower ranks as a necessary tactic to advance. None of this is solely Obama's people...it is an institutionalized Washington DC behavior pattern.
Lies cost money unnecessarily. Lie get good people killed.
Nothing angers me more in government.
If only that guy in jail hadn't made that movie...
The only way it hurts Hillary is if she chooses not to run because of this. There is too much cover for her in the media for this to hurt her and her supporters simply don't care.
Hillary had a direct phone call with Hicks in the middle of the night (his time) so she knew it was an attack, not a demonstration.
Victoria Toensing still hasn't been given a high-level security clearance to represent her client (she's held such clearances in the past, so it shouldn't be a problem). It should be clear to all the government is doing everything it can to block this whole investigation and keep the truth from getting out.
Is it me, or is Elijah Cummings pretty embarrasing?
Speaking for myself...it is NOT about bringing down an administration, it is all about revealing, then eliminating the practice of outright lying at the highest senior ranks. It bleeds down to lower ranks as a necessary tactic to advance. None of this is solely Obama's people...it is an institutionalized Washington DC behavior pattern."
Its not just the lies as important as that is but the high-handed arrogance of the Administration and its dereliction duty. These bastards apparently put a higher value on Obama's and Hillary's political careers than on the lives of US government personnel.
bpm4532 said...Is it me, or is Elijah Cummings pretty embarrasing?
Its not you. Cummings is an administration lapdog. His incentive is to perform well for them not seek out the truth.
Cummings lying again, as his lips are moving.
phx said...
Well let's see if they're going to bring down the Obamam administration.
Remember when the left pretended to care about Benghazi and we just had to wait until the facts were out? Now here come the facts and all they care about is undermining them. I guess some forgot to stay in character.
The media must be disappointed that Amanda Berry decided not to make a statement so there's nothing to cover right now...
Jason Collins needs to call a press conference...STAT!
Death is a part of life - Cummings gets his perspective from Forrest Gump.
Is it me, or is Elijah Cummings pretty embarrasing?
Well, he's an affirmative action 'hire', so, what do you think?
Elijah Cummings sounds drunk.
I suspect that the Cleveland incident will trump the Benghazi hearings.
It is interesting to note that the MSM and the left (but I repeat myself) are all clamoring that the Cleveland police should have done more (like break down the door w/o a warrant, or something) to save three girls. However when it comes to Benghazi, their view is that the government has nothing to do with the protection of four dead souls.
Interesting...
Cummings has his allotted time, and damn, he's going to use every second of it! Mostly pointless words.
Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel Gibson needs to be asked, directly, about who in his chain of command directly him not to deploy his team to Benghazi on the rescue mission. Gregory says the LTC was not happy and I believe him...so who ordered it?
Is it me, or is Elijah Cummings pretty embarrasing
It's you and I. And everybody here, I believe, except for a few. And the whole time I was thinking of this. For different reasons government and peabrain turn out to be the exact same thing so the only way to tell the difference is by context but context in this case is never a help.
Interesting that they chose to put it on CSPAN-3, which isn't available on DIRECTV, and probably most cable providers as well. The other two CSPAN channels are showing stuff that in the grand scheme of things is far less important.
There are a lot of very good reasons to peel the Benghazi onion. Bringing down the Obama administration is low or not on the list. Countering Clinton's run for the Oval Office isn't a reason either. She effectively did that herself in one moment of lost cool with her "What difference does it make?" comment. Whatever happens to Obama or Clinton is a sideshow. This is about exposing the reasons why those people were left to die as comprehensively as possible and ensuring that reasoning never comes into play again.
Days before Susan Rice went on TV, State Department was told Ansar al-Sharia, a group wit ties to terror, was behind Benghazi attack.
Such a transparent administration, huh?
Ah, righteous indignation from Rep Maloney (D-NY). Closing ranks on the femalehood.
Cummings gets his perspective from Forrest Gump.
...or Master Yoda.
Beth Jones (State Dept) email on 9/12/12 IDs attackers as Ansar al Sharia. CIA memo the same day said same thing.
So, who, exactly, told Susan Rice to lie?
Patrick said...
If only that guy in jail hadn't made that movie...
Yeah ... in Egypt they murder and torture Coptics and here we just put them in jail them without a trial.
For those who would say "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula violated his parole from prison for financial crimes," I offer that the video had nothing to do with his prior conviction.
This has always been about getting to the troof! It has NOTHING to do with trying to embarrass the President, or to discredit Hillary, who beating any Republican rival in the polls. We Republicans really do care. [Please look back at our concern with all the embassy bombings under Bush.]
Patrick said...
If only that guy in jail hadn't made that movie...
I'm mildly shocked that Inga has been smart enough to avoid this subject after making such a fool of herself screaming about that video. it's still early though.
Republican said...
This has always been about getting to the troof! It has NOTHING to do with trying to embarrass the President, or to discredit Hillary, who beating any Republican rival in the polls. We Republicans really do care. [Please look back at our concern with all the embassy bombings under Bush.]
U mad, bro?
"troof"
Does spelling it that way make you feel clever? Cutting? A jackass?
Inga aka: Zsa Zsa, has disappeared ala Garage did when Walker was not indicted.
sockpuppeting as a Republican has always been about getting to the troof! It has NOTHING to do with trying satisfy a lefty's racism jones.
or to discredit Hillary, who beating any Republican rival in the polls
Right.
Because nothing says "Panic" like these (alleged) polls more than 4 years from an election.
I bet you were all giddy whe PPP had Colbert-Busch up over Sanford, 10 days ago, huh?
It has to suck to be all bum-hurt today, like you are.
We Republicans really do care. [Please look back at our concern with all the embassy bombings under Bush.]
Please list the embassy bombing "under Bush" where an Administration official took to television to say it was falsely inspired by a Youtube video.
Thanks in advance, dumbass.
Aridog said...
Fox is covering the hearing & testimony live right now. CNN and MSNBC are not covering. No surprise.
And if the New York Times refuses to cover the story (as they've done so far), many low information voters will never know it happened.
Watching the testimony is reaffirming my vow from ten years ago to never vote for a Democrat again. My God, they are disgusting.
Wow!! Boom!! And we just learn that only the Sec State can override and allow the occupancy of a site that does not meet the minimum security standards, as Benghazi did not.
So much for the now destroyed point that Clinton did not personally sign those cables.
ndspinelli said...
Inga aka: Zsa Zsa, has disappeared ala Garage did when Walker was not indicted.
"When even the most clueless get a clue."
(Finally learning the tricks of this commenting business.)
I just received my Hillary for President bumper sticker. It says:
Hillary for President.
What difference does it make?
2016
"U mad, bro?"
Why no, of course not. We're truth seekers, you and I. If Bush were in office we'd be doing the same exact thing. [Please go back and look at 9/11]. We were ALL over that too.
woo hoo. Another affirmative action 'hire' gets to embarrass the Dems.
Mr. Clay. It's the Republicans fault for not authorizing enought money for security. LOLOLOLOLOL. What an ass.
Mauna Kea said...
FEST team wasn't used, Thompson doesn't know why. So what good is his testimony then?
Mark Thompson clearly testified that he was told specifically that the situation was "too unsafe" for a FEST deployment. One has to wonder what is too unsafe even for a FEST team? Thompson has been clear he was not included in that decision making, by direction and/or omission.
ndspinelli...
Isn't there a saying about naming the demon and it will show?
It would be great if this thread could stay on topic. It's important.
So please ignore this jackass posting as republican and his attempts to derail it. At the least do not respond to him/her substantially. And the same goes for Ritmo, Diamond, or Inga if they show up.
We were also all over this as well:
A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen
But he said one of his greatest regrets was in failing to overcome the arguments that "'Marines don't cut and run,' and 'We can't leave because we're there"' before the devastating suicide attack on the lightly armed force.
"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. "I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position."
machine said...
hahahaha....keep trying dutcho...
Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator, maker of aggressive war, and financier and sponsor of terrorism gone.
Al Qaeda gutted and discredited in the Moslem world. *
Iran flanked on both sides. *
* Until the SCOAMF decided he knew better.
I've shoved those facts down your throat (or, in the mindless automaton's case, up his ass, since that's where his brain seems to be located) several times.
Care to tell me which one of those facts is wrong?
Denial ceased to be a river in Egypt a long time ago for Lefties.
So please ignore this jackass posting as republican and his attempts to derail it
I wish I could, but he's actually talking on point with the subject at hand. Putting up GIANT strawmen, but on point nonetheless.
That said:
We were also all over this as well:
A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen
Please explain to me how the Benghazi mess, and subsequent coverup, is even remotely the same as what happened then, when there was NO coverup?
Republican said...
"U mad, bro?"
Why no, of course not. We're truth seekers, you and I. If Bush were in office we'd be doing the same exact thing. [Please go back and look at 9/11]. We were ALL over that too.
Yeah, u mad.
B said...
It would be great if this thread could stay on topic. It's important.
So please ignore this jackass posting as republican and his attempts to derail it. At the least do not respond to him/her substantially. And the same goes for Ritmo, Diamond, or Inga if they show up.
You must be new here. Welcome.
I'm mildly shocked that Inga has been smart enough to avoid this subject after making such a fool of herself screaming about that video. it's still early though.
I would guess that anyone of sufficient intelligence to use a computer would recognize how foolish they were to believe the Administration's misdirection on that video. Hence the silence.
What "republican" seems to be saying is that POTUSes (POTUSi?) are capable of making mistakes wrt the use of the military, even one such as Reagan, but also, judging by it's posting, it's trying to suggest Barry is incapable of having made a mistake.
Weird.
Where do the Dems GET those ignorant embarrassing clowns?
Oh. Forgot. 15th amendment. My bad.
Inga hasn't been heard from since that long long comment thread the other day/night where she made a complete ass of herself going after someone's diabetic daughter. Has she? I'm pretty sure not.
"Please list the embassy bombing "under Bush" where an Administration official took to television to say it was falsely inspired by a Youtube video."
Also... please list the embassy bombing that went on for 7 hours while no help was sent.
And list the embassy bombing where the facility was not secured in any way even days afterward.
Talk about BS! Our embassies and facilities have been attacked many times. But when ELSE have we refused to even secure the facility afterward? When else has an administration lied so blatantly about the nature of the attack? Which other attack resulted in an official scape-goat in prison? When else have we had eyes on an ongoing attack for at least 7 hours and not sent any help? In what other embassy attack did our government officially contradict the leader of another country who accurately described the event?
Well... whatever. It was wrong to ask before Obama got reelected because it was too soon and investigations needed to be done. It was hateful to ask if Hillary was making excuses to avoid giving testimony even though she ended up giving it so late she wasn't even Sec of State anymore and "what different, at this point, does it make?" And now... now it's OLD NEWS and no one could possibly have a legitimate non-partisan reason to ask questions or want answers.
I get it. I do. Obama supporters know he lied to them, but they don't care. They knew he was lying in September, but they don't care.
I missed the part where they were told it was too dangerous for FEST, thanks for mentioning that.
I think it was Ari?
Wow. That's...insane.
Michael Turner is asking excellent questions...
CEO-MMP said...
Inga hasn't been heard from since that long long comment thread the other day/night where she made a complete ass of herself going after someone's diabetic daughter. Has she? I'm pretty sure not.
Nope. Notice how the demeanor of Althouse is different when she isn't here. Maybe she went outside for a long drunken walk and ended up getting lost... For good.
I missed the part where Reagan went all CYA and denied responsibility for the Beirut bombing.
I Callahan said...I wish I could, but he's actually talking on point with the subject at hand. Putting up GIANT strawmen, but on point nonetheless.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be the point. I don't see it as an administration putting people in harm's way for good and sufficient reason. That's part of the job. I see it as not supporting those people when the situation goes bad. I also want to know as you do what was the rationale for the cover up.
Neither of the two points key here have any relationship whatsoever to republican's attempted derailment. He won't answer you. Now that you have noticed him substantially he'll just keep tossing in non-sequiturs until they become the subject at hand.
phx said...
Well let's see if they're going to bring down the Obamam administration.
I'll give this, you do a mean buck and wing.
Since it has become Obvious that Hillary knew what was happening on the ground in real time, and she knew it wasn't a "spontaneous demonstration" over a movie. I'd like to hear her spin her way out of the bold faced lies she told the American people.
Again; Who gave the order to stand down?
I get it. I do. Obama supporters know he lied to them, but they don't care. They knew he was lying in September, but they don't care.
Synova: And that's the bottom line, as we see from our liberal friends by their comments or lack thereof.
Erica, they aren't "questioning." The democrats are filibustering the time, period.
If Bush were in office we'd be doing the same exact thing. [Please go back and look at 9/11]. We were ALL over that too.
Yes!
Because there wasn't a 9-11 Commission or anything.
No hearing.
No nothing.
Great point.
Idiot.
Why did the administration and Hillary push the lie about "the video"?
Erica, you're online..aren't you? You can watch the testimony in its entirely on CSPAN3 online.
Synova said...
I missed the part where Reagan went all CYA and denied responsibility for the Beirut bombing.
No, you see, apparently the important point here is that there was a bombing while Reagan was in office.
The silly troll thinks something is being accomplished by stating that.
What is even funnier is that the troll can't seem to grasp that when you have to excuse Democrats by saying "they act like Republicans" you really are an imbecile.
Rusty said...phx said...Well let's see if they're going to bring down the Obamam administration.
I don't read his comments except unavoidably en passant but I'll address your addressing one of them.
Any conservative giving the matter some serious thought should not advocate Obama being impeached. He is a known quantity and although he is still capable of great damage it can and will be reversed. The damage that someone like Joey Giggles could do if he stepped into the top spot may not be.
"I missed the part where Reagan went all CYA and denied responsibility for the Beirut bombing."
Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter for the Beirut bombings. Hell of a guy!
Hey Erica, why do you care what FOX is doing? If you don't like their coverage, check it out at C-span or some other place.
I watched the POTUS/VPOTUS debates on C-span to avoid any sort of moronic talking head involvement.
Or are you just trying to troll a little?
What a crappy few weeks for the left.
Gun control dies and a subsequent DOJ report obliterates their talking points.
Gosnell
The "FIRST EVER" gay NBA player is basically unrecognizable, may not play next year, and is basically a Dem operative.
Benghazi back in the news
Nobody has noticed the sequester, nor cares about budget cuts.
Mark Sanford, philanderer & creep, beats the sister of one of their favorite "funny" talking heads for a seat in Congress.
No wonder they are all bum hurt.
The demonstration. The video. Not much curiosity from the progressives.
You have a cite for that, "republican"? Because I don't remember it that way, and can't find any evidence of it during a routine search of Bing.
Republican said...
Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter for the Beirut bombings
Yeah, I bet he did.
And Albert Einstein is a product of American public schools too.
If the truth is... "We thought the security was adequate and were trying to keep a low profile. When the attack began we expected it to be over far too quickly for help to arrive, no other embassy or consulate attacks have been sieges, so we ordered the teams who could have responded to stand down. We made decisions and it turned out that they were bad ones."
People would get that, right? "The buck stops here." Right? Leadership is making decisions on guesses about what might happen and there is always always a number of different opinion and if things go wrong there is always someone who can say "if only they'd listened to me."
But we didn't get the truth at all. Obama hasn't the first concept of standing by someone in his administration who has something go wrong, its either denial or under the bus. Nothing else. So we get weeks worth of BS about videos and promises to investigate and then refusals to release any sort of clear and simple statement about what happened and who had authority over the decisions that were made.
Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter for the Beirut bombings. Hell of a guy!
Thanks garage! You can come out from behind the false avatar now.
Erica said...I am finding I annoying that FOX is cutting away when Democrats are doing the questioning.
They are asking few if any questions. All they are doing is regurgitating the obfuscations we've been hearing for almost 9 months now in set speeches.
Erica said...I want to hear both sides.
There shouldn't even be any sides here. It is a hearing where the ostensible purpose is to uncover the answers to questions left unanswered by asking people with direct knowledge of the facts. The congressman ducking and dodging that responsibility and trying to deflect are shameless assholes
by the way, how much of a weirdo is garage?
I mean, would you be surprised if he had 2 or 3 girls tied up in his basement based on his bizarro act here?
If I may blow my own horn a little, I said this in a conversation with Inga:
(http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/11/who-changed-those-benghazi-talking.html?showComment=1353457615108#c5905690552582825298)
The CIA agents did not start out in contact with the enemy. They were told to stand down and did not.
They proceeded to the Consulate and recovered one body, but not Ambassador Stevens.
They then came under fire from the enemy, and the battle lasted 7 hours.
They called for additional help.
Help of some sort was a maximum of 3 hours away.
One was exposing himself to enemy fire to use a laser to designate a target when he was killed by mortar fire.
He would not have been doing that if there wasn't something available that could hit that target.
We know this because the annex was in contact with superiors not on the scene.
The USAF creed says we never leave anyone behind. The Marines do to, I think, and I've been told by other servicemembers that every branch swears they will not leave anyone behind in their creed.
The attack was watched by drones as it developed.
So why did no one try to help?
It would take a direct order.
The CIA spokesperson, speaking on behalf of Petraeus, said, specifically: "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."
That wording strongly implies there was an order to not help that came from above the CIA.
It would take 48 hours, maximum, for the man who sits at the top of the most robust information chain to determine where the disconnect was, why no help was sent, who gave the order to stand down, why no help was available (if that was the case), etc.
Instead, he chose to lie to the American people about it for more than 2 weeks.
Then he lied about lying about it during a televised debate.
And then, more than a month after the attack, he made a statement about orders he gave that contained zero specifics.
1) He did not say when he "found out what was happening". That is a vital part of the issue that he refuses to tell us, even though he certainly knows, and could have told us that very same day. Why not? Why don't you care?
2) He did not specify what he meant by "what was happening". The attack on the Ambassador? The attack on the CIA annex? That his damage control had finally failed? That news sources had revealed his incompetence and/or malfeasance?
3) He did not specify to whom he gave the orders.
4) He did not specify what he meant by "Whatever we need to do".
5) He did not explain why, if he gave the order during the attack, why his orders were not followed.
6) If did not give the order during the attack, he did not explain the gap, or why he wasn't aware of the attack when it happened (which would be illegal).
So the problem is, bottom line, that President Obama is promising to investigate who attacked, and why security was inadequate, but more than 2 months later he hasn't given us even the simple facts he knew on 11 Sep 2012. More than 2 months later he hasn't given us an update on any aspect of the "investigation". He isn't even promising to investigate the problems in his chain of command about inadequate security or failure to make even a token attempt to save American lives.
Why will he not tell us even the most basics of who, when and what?
James, I'm on a mobile device.
So you can access Fox News on your mobile device but not CSPAN3?
I'm also proud of this:
What has President Obama done in response to the death of our Ambassador?
Anything?
Does anyone really want to re-elect a President that blows off* the murder of an Ambassador?
*until I get some evidence to the contrary, yes, that is the most accurate description of President Obama's demonstrated attitude to date. He went to sleep with the Ambassador missing, went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas the same day as receiving the news of the Ambassador's death, sent in an FBI team (treated it as a crime, rather than an attack on the US), and is talking more about his debate and Big Bird than the sacrifice these people gave for the nation.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-state-department-tells-benghazi.html?showComment=1349896133481#c3170737331974374345
And this:
The President has not been forthcoming on basic information that is within his knowledge and/or control regarding the slaughter of Americans...including the failures of leadership that left 2 vulnerable, the failures of leadership that let the other 2 die without any attempt to rescue, and the failures of leadership to ensure accountability afterwards.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/11/who-changed-those-benghazi-talking.html?showComment=1353465003828#c5273229958800766207
I've seen a lot of people wanting to get to the bottom of who gave the order telling the rescue team to stand down.
I'm not sure that anyone gave that order. Remember, in general, individual troops/units/etc. don't have the authority to engage in battle, even if they know there are Americans nearby whom they could save. Someone high-up sets the rules of engagement which the troops must follow.
Thus, on the night of the attack, they were not ordered to stand down. They were reminded that nobody had authorized them to act.
The question should be who had the authority to order them in, and why didn't they?
re: fallout from this:
I agree that it is too early to discuss impeachment.
I agree that as things stand (media-led embargo of asking tough questions about Benghazi, allowing Obama to refuse to provide even the most basic of information without penalty), there is no chance of Obama being removed from office.
However...
If the media actually did their job and investigated, followed up on leads, sought out witnesses protected from disclosure by 1st Amendment principles, etc, it could get to the point where it was politically dangerous for some Democrat Senators to support Obama.
The point being:
Obama is responsible for our national interests, and the welfare of his direct subordinates.
He can (and does) delegate decision-making authority for routine and even important issues.
But life and death decisions when there is a clear, actionable threat stream are POTUS responsibility. If he delegated those decisions, he is still responsible for the delegation. Meaning, if there was dereliction of duty in either the order to reduce security despite threats, or dereliction of duty to not send military assistance during a gunbattle, then Obama is fully responsible whether he delegated those decisions or not. The only question is if a subordinate would go down with him or not.
Then there is the aftermath.
It is clear that the White House made the deliberate decision to deceive the US public regarding the nature of the attack, i.e. Rice announcing on five (!) Sunday morning shows that it was a spontaneous protest related to the video, SecState Clinton telling family members they would "get" the video producer responsible for the attack, etc, and blaming that misinformation on the Intelligence Community when that information did not come from the Intelligence Community in any way, shape, or form.
The decision to deliberately deceive the US populace is 100% Obama's responsibility, and there can be zero delegation of accountability in this case.
But again, for Obama to be held accountable, low information voters have to care.
And the media is expending every effort to ensure that low information voters are not exposed to information that might get them angry at Obama.
For example, I don't think Inga or Garage could be considered low information citizens, and the fact that even they consider it unimportant that Obama committed impeachable acts shows how difficult it would be to get low information voters to even notice, much less care.
But while some fires fizzle out, sometimes just a spark can turn into an inferno. Getting Ms. Clinton to testify under oath is a necessary but not a sufficient step to enforcing accountability for the evil actions of the White House regarding the attack in Benghazi.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/12/senate-republicans-refuse-to-confirm.html?showComment=1356730148335#c8319886077891598674
The President's response reminds me of O.J. Simpson after his trial.
He was going to do whatever he could to find Nicole's murderer.
If you want damning evidence of the pure lying filth that Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are just go to Youtube and listen to Trey Gowdy (R-SC) questioning Gregory Hicks about what those two knew and then said and did in total denial of what they knew.
From NRO:
According to Gregory Hicks, a Benghazi whistle-blower, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills called him directly following his meeting with a Republican representative investigating the attacks. Prior to his meeting with Representative Jason Chaffetz, State Department lawyers told Hicks and other witnesses not to meet without lawyers present. The lawyers were ultimately excluded because they did not have a security clearance sufficient to discuss the classified material addressed in the meeting.
Hicks received a call from Mills, whom he described as being ”very upset.” Mills, he said, demanded to know what was said in the meeting. Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) pointed out that the State Department’s monitoring of Hicks’s activity is peculiar given the praise he has garnered over a long diplomatic career.
“Here’s a guy with 22 years of outstanding service to our country — 22 years — outstanding service, praised by everyone who counts,” Jordan said. ”The president, the secretary, everyone above him. Because he won’t help them cover this up — he’s an honorable man here telling the truth — now is getting this kind of treatment from the very people who praised him before.”
Hicks is one of three whistleblowers testifying today before the House Oversight Committee, chairment by Republican representative Darrell Issa, about the Obama administration’s response to the 9/11 Benghazi attack.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347758/hicks-clintons-confidante-called-me-very-upset-cooperating-investigation
@Ignorance is Bliss:
Hicks said the Special Forces were told to stand down:
According to Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya, special forces were “furious” when they were told to stand down during the Benghazi attack. “I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson,” Hicks told the House Oversight Committee in hearings today, “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347754/hicks-special-forces-furious-upon-being-told-stand-down
Tammy Duckworth talking now.
The Dems Just. Don't. Get. It.
It sure seems their tack is all about protecting Hillary.
"We didn't have time to prepare for this hearing?"
Read the web!
Besides, you should have been doing your homework for the last 8 months, Congresswoman.
CSPAN 3 is on the internet streaming live, for those who can't get it on TV.
Erica said...
I want to hear both sides.
That is the wrong premise to take in this regard. There should only be one side. The side of truth and you are willingly asking for another version from the 'other' side when there should be any. This is why you are being trollish. Either you care about the truth regardless of where it leads or you care about cover for an administration that has lied about the truth of what happened there.
He was going to do whatever he could to find Nicole's murderer.
Coincidentally, both "searches"
involved extensive canvassing of golf courses.
JAL said...
The President's response reminds me of O.J. Simpson after his trial.
He was going to do whatever he could to find Nicole's murderer.
Kind of like how some of the Castro brothers in Cleveland went to candlelight vigils and ended up on search parties for the girls they kidnapped, raped, tortured, and possibly murdered.
Again, these are not hard questions. Obama, Hillary and other high officials were there and know what happened. They just won't tell us.
And one of the whistleblowers attponeys -- who was a special counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee (IIRC) in the past only get a low level security clearance, if that?
But then, if nothing happened here of note, why would anyone need any security clearance? There was no breach of anything important.
Just the remains of our consulate scattered around for three weeks.
How about the autopsy results for Ambassador Stevens and the information officer Smith?
Nathan Alexander said...
According to Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya, special forces were “furious” when they were told to stand down during the Benghazi attack.
I am aware of this. However, I suspect that this phrasing most likely does not accurately describe the legalities of the situation. They could have gone anyway after being told to stand down, but they likely would have faced a court-martial for violating orders. However, if they had not been told to stand down, and they went, they would face exactly the same court martial for violating their rules of engagement.
Soldiers can't engage in battle unless their rules of engagement authorize it.
Another dark skinned Dem blaming budgets cuts for Benghazi.
They sure do what they're told, don't they?
What's that word the Old South had for such people? 'House' something?
Wow, that was dramatic. I just saw this testimony:
"I want the truth!"
"You can't handle the truth!"
. . .
"Did you order the Code red?!"
"You're goddamnm right I did!"
Wait. That's not CSpan. That's TMC. Sorry.
Wow, that was dramatic. I just saw this testimony:
"I want the truth!"
"You can't handle the truth!"
. . .
"Did you order the Code red?!"
"You're goddamnm right I did!"
Wait. That's not CSpan. That's TMC. Sorry.
A lot of time being spent by Dems putting out phony talking points and Reps shooting down Dems phony talking points.
Cheryl Mills is Black????
Well . . . that helps explain things.
However, if they had not been told to stand down, and they went, they would face exactly the same court martial for violating their rules of engagement.
That's not altogether true. It's possible, of course. But it's a much harder charge to make. The biggest problem is career minded people. SF types (not always senior officers) usually have more of a warrior mentality and less of a "how is this going to affect ME" mentality.
@Ignorance is Bliss,
I am aware of this. However, I suspect that this phrasing most likely does not accurately describe the legalities of the situation. They could have gone anyway after being told to stand down, but they likely would have faced a court-martial for violating orders. However, if they had not been told to stand down, and they went, they would face exactly the same court martial for violating their rules of engagement.
Soldiers can't engage in battle unless their rules of engagement authorize it.
Rules of Engagement are broad guidelines and would not cover "you can or cannot go to rescue someone".
You are correct that going in w/o authorization would be at a risk of court martial. But there is the old saw about forgiveness vs permission. A SpecOps CC would know how to phrase the explanation of his actions to give himself court-martial avoiding cover to do the right thing, i.e., save US lives.
But when given a direct order to stand down, you can no longer play "I did the right thing" card. A superior giving an order to stand down indicates the superior knows the whole situation and you do not. A leader in the US military can act in the absence of orders: that is the backbone of the "Centralized Command, Decentralized Execution" principle that props up our military being the best in the world. A good leader could find a way to justify acting in the absence of orders as being in accordance with time-tested US military principles of not leaving anyone behind and being defenders of the US populace and its National Interests.
But, at the risk of belaboring the point, a direct order to stand down removed any wiggle room at all. It is literally mutiny.
@ BarrySanders20
""I want the truth!"
"You can't handle the truth!"
. . .
"Did you order the Code red?!"."
Code Red Mountain Dew!? You damn right I did! And a large pepperoni pizza with extra cheese too!
Oh wait. That's my lunch order.
Well, Fox dropped it cold....in favor of the earth-shattering consequence of the pending Jodi Araia verdict.
@ Nathan Alexander
"But, at the risk of belaboring the point, a direct order to stand down removed any wiggle room at all. It is literally mutiny."
The principle I was taught in the Marines was that in the absence of orders running to the sound of a firefight was the right thing to do. But if you're given a direct order then that is it. No wiggle room at all at that point.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Soldiers can't engage in battle unless their rules of engagement authorize it.
It's pretty hard to believe one of those rules doesn't authorize engagement when Americans are under attack. So why wouldn't we react?
Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator, maker of aggressive war, and financier and sponsor of terrorism gone.
What terrorists was Saddam sponsering? As for brutal dictator, I wasn't aware that was a casus belli for us.
Al Qaeda gutted and discredited in the Moslem world. *
Yeah. The Moslem world really hates those guys.
Iran flanked on both sides. *
Why is this a good thing and why should we care? I mean other than putting American troops in range of their nukes when they develop them?
ed said...
The principle I was taught in the Marines was that in the absence of orders running to the sound of a firefight was the right thing to do. But if you're given a direct order then that is it. No wiggle room at all at that point.
I could be wrong in all of this. However, I'm pretty sure there is a significant difference between running to the sound of a firefight and getting on a plane to travel to a different town in a foreign country where we are not supposed to be at war.
Ya burnt...by the Colonel!
Go ahead...makeup another reason...
What terrorists was Saddam sponsering? As for brutal dictator, I wasn't aware that was a casus belli for us.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=24
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000863
Casus Belli is whatever we want it to be, as expressed through Congressional authorization for war. Which they gave, for multiple reasons, including Saddam Hussein being a brutal dictator.
Put it another way: is freeing 26 million people from tyranny a worthwhile casus belli?
I think so.
We fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam to prevent such a tyranny from being imposed, no? We didn't stop when Hitler was confined to Europe, but continued until he was deposed. Same with Japan.
Finally, the actual, final, 100% justified casus belli as authorized by both US Congress and the UN is that Saddam Hussein had to give full, open, and cooperative accountability for his known WMD stocks and potential turnkey WMD programs. He did not, and did everything he could to obfuscate, delay, and avoid accountability.
Case closed. Casus belli 100% fulfilled. The rest is just icing on the cake.
Hm. looks like machine beclowned himself again.
This is getting to be a habit for him.
Benghazi is just another example of why civilian control of the military is a bad idea.
I've got more faith in a Marine Sgt. than a US Senator.
Not sure what Saddam Hussein has to do with Benghazi, however. Where we topped a dictator who had severed ties to terrorism and had given full accountability to the end of his WMD program. Especially when his toppling left an opportunity for terrorists to create a safe haven to export further terror...as they did into Mali.
The "it was a video" line was ridiculous as soon as it was floated. Not everyone knows enough about YouTube, ME politics, etc., to be bold about that assessment, and such reticence is generally laudable. But it was a laugh-worthy lie. We seem to have come so far from remembering that.
The principle I was taught in the Marines was that in the absence of orders running to the sound of a firefight was the right thing to do.
I think it was Napoleon. "A Commander can do little wrong, who marches toward the sound of the guns."
WRT Crossing the Libyan border, sure, you need approval from the highest levels, but intermediate commanders can order resources to move to Sigonella. My experience is that when "Boots and Saddles" is sounded, forces start flowing. When a battle starts you don't know how long it will last and what forces are going to be enough. If you don't start soon, you won't have the forces there if things really turn to crap...
JAL asked ...
But then, if nothing happened here of note, why would anyone need any security clearance? There was no breach of anything important.
Actually, even the people testifying have {carefully] paused their line of commentary when classified issues were near being touched upon. For example: the purpose of the staff in the Annex?
In other words, was the Annex the focus of attack, for reasons related to its mission above and beyond the Dept of State, and was if staffed to adequately defend itself [obviously not ]?
I mean I am quite confident I know what the purpose was, like many other CIA Annexes, and it is properly classified highly with added need to know restrictions, but it is specifically being avoided in this hearing and by the witnesses.
I do find it odd that the witnesses have not been allowed to review classified findings on activities they participated in themselves and testified to in fact.
The reason the later matter of review bothers me is because I've experienced it myself, and when finally reviewed [with or without clearance] I found my own calculations and testimony to have been altered...not just condensed, but altered to say what clearly was untrue...with my name left on the documents as the author.
This kind of experience is what creates *whistle-blowers.*
Ralph Peters On Benghazi: Obama Admin Makes "Nigerian Phone Scammers Look Like Paragons Of Integrity"
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
Casus Belli is whatever we want it to be, as expressed through Congressional authorization for war. Which they gave, for multiple reasons, including Saddam Hussein being a brutal dictator.
See I thought it was actually having a good reason to spend blood and treasure.
Put it another way: is freeing 26 million people from tyranny a worthwhile casus belli?I think so.
Good for you. Considering we spent more than a few years and a few thousand Americans fighting these newly freed people, I would say they had a lousy way of showing their gratitude of being freed from tyranny. Hell we've been gone what a year and they're still killing each other.
We fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam to prevent such a tyranny from being imposed, no? We didn't stop when Hitler was confined to Europe, but continued until he was deposed. Same with Japan.
Last time I checked, Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. Korea was another waste of manpower as was Vietnam.
For me casus belli is when we are attacked or in imminent danger of being attacked. There are a number of brutal dictators around the world and I don't think overthrowing them are worth American lives.
Speaking for myself...it is NOT about bringing down an administration, it is all about revealing, then eliminating the practice of outright lying at the highest senior ranks.
I'm okay with that, and wherever the trail leads.
Good for you. Considering we spent more than a few years and a few thousand Americans fighting these newly freed people, I would say they had a lousy way of showing their gratitude of being freed from tyranny. Hell we've been gone what a year and they're still killing each other.
You really have a difficulty with distinguishing between opposing power bases.
You can't simultaneously claim Iraq had no connection with al Qaida, and then claim Iraqis were attacking us and killing each other when it is al Qaida responsible for those things.
Colonel, stating something is A reason for something does not mean it was THE reason for it. There were a litany of reasons for the Iraq War. Surely, you KNOW this and are just being an ass by trying to deny it. Some of the reasons you may have supported; others you may have felt were not a good basis. Honest, well-meaning people can disagree but pretending those reasons don't exist is just rank partisanship.
Instead of pretending certain arguments don't exist (Hussein was a murderous shitbag, he supported international terrorists, etc.) just say that you do not believe that, in total, the reasons for invading did not offset the reasons not to. Is that too hard to do? Reasonable people can disagree. But at least be reasonable WHEN you disagree.
By the way,
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
But surely you already knew this. Or do you just ignorantly spout off a lot?
To tie this back to the actual subject of this thread, it is obvious that Obama, Rice and Clinton were lying about the motivations for the attack. The question everyone should have is "Why?". Democrats are too busy trying to cover there team's ass and, especially those in the hearing, are damaging the Democrat brand to protect people who do not deserve protection. It is ugly to see these Democrats talk about how they want to protect these whistleblowers and then dump a pile of shit on them. Ugly and rank.
The best of them was Tammy Duckworth (who I can generally not stand) who pivoted to "what can we do to prevent this in the future" rather than attach the truth. If other Democrats were doing that, I could understand and respect their desire not to attack their own. However, when they are purposely trying to obfuscate the efforts to get to the truth of what happened, they just show themselves to me mindless robots who are slaves to the party line. Gross.
Nathan Alexander said ...
But when given a direct order to stand down ...
Only as a point of clarification, let me stipulate that if a unit leader is preparing to go on a mission, with his/her unit, based upon their best judgment and understanding of the ROE's, and they receive a radio or telephonic call saying "you are not authorized to proceed" ...that IS the same thing as being told "Stand down" ....but leaves the issue of "why" unresolved and that is the C.Y.A. part.
Others whit more and wider military experience than I should correct of clarify me on this if necessary.
I have received "guidance" that I was not authorized to proceed many times, very rarely ever told "don't go" or "don't do" per se.
So please ignore this jackass posting as republican and his attempts to derail it. At the least do not respond to him/her substantially. And the same goes for Ritmo, Diamond, or Inga if they show up.
Too funny. It's like you're playing the role of Jonathan Winters in The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! "We've GOT to get organized!"
Matt
Believe it or not I gave read the reasons for the Iraq war and in my opinion none warranted us going to war over it. Syria and Iran certainly had stronger ties to international terrorism than Saddam and being a shit hag dictator isn't cause for Defcon 4.
In relation to the original thread topic, what they should be grilling the Administration on is why they engaged in Libyan regime change after seeing how it worked with Iraq? Toppling Ghaddafi has only opened the country up to more instability which led directly to the deaths of Stevens and the others.
This needs to be addressed before he gets us mixed up in Syria where that discredited al queda seems to be doing the lions share of fighting for the rebels.
I am finding I annoying that FOX is cutting away when Democrats are doing the questioning. I want to hear both sides. Also it makes them look biased.
You're kidding right? I've never even seen FOX but I thought even the righties don't pretend FOX isn't biased.
phx,
Your earlier comment on wanting the truth despite the fact it might damage people you like is commendable and a credit to you. However, do not pretend there are not disingenuous people who come here specifically to distract and derail any criticism of Obama and the Democrat Party. In fact, some are commenting right now.
You'll also notice that the call to "close ranks" has been largely ignored, which generally happens when you try to herd folks who lean libertarian.
@Aridog,
No, I agree. A phone call telling you you are NOT authorized to continue is a stand-down order, even if the actual terms "Stand Down" were not actually used.
@Col Angus,
I don't have a problem if you disagree that it was worthwhile to go to war in Iraq. We don't need 100% consensus on every single thing we do as a nation.
Some people were opposed to fighting in WWII, as well.
But for you to constantly mis-state and distort the very clear reasons we entered the war, and the way you (it strikes me as) belittle anyone who thinks we are justified isn't really arguing in good faith.
"Stand down"
Having been on the receiving end of those very words, I would submit to you that they don't clear up the "why" any more than "you are not authorized" obscures.
Your earlier comment on wanting the truth despite the fact it might damage people you like is commendable and a credit to you.
Thanks Matt. I would like to say it's not going to damage me in the least one way or the other.
Colonel said:
"Believe it or not I have read the reasons for the Iraq war and in my opinion none warranted us going to war over it."
I believe you and understand that reasonable people can disagree on that. My issue was that you were acting like either you did not know the reasons or were purposefully interpreting other people's statements as though those other reasons do not exist (whether you agree with them or not). It is a disingenuous way to engage someone.
I think your questions on Libya, and the wider approach to Middle East are valid and a discussion of it would be interesting so long as folks are doing it in such a way that they were trying to clarify their position rather than score points.
Of course, the topic here is what happened with Benghazi.
phx said...
You're kidding right? I've never even seen FOX but I thought even the righties don't pretend FOX isn't biased.
5/8/13, 3:05 PM
I always thought that when Fox folks said "Fair and Balanced" the smile on their face was wry. But I tend to find folks on the right more honest about the Fox bias than folks on the left are about every other network.
Plus, if Fox wanted to hurt Democrats, they would just show them as they speak during these hearings. Yuck! I don't know why Fox is covering for them. :)
The SPECOps guys could "just go if they wanted to" nonsense plays well in the movies but that isn't real life. For one, the pilot taking you somewhere needs some permissions. Plus, when you want supporting fires those need clearance. Last a SPECOps team is a strategic asset so the team chief better clear it else he's an ex-chief right quick.
phx,
I don't think anything that comes out of the hearings should hurt you personally unless... Are you actually Susan Rice?
phx said...
Reference: my remark about institutionalized lying at senior levels.
I'm okay with that, and wherever the trail leads.
OMG! :-)) I am in agreement with @ Phx again, after being twice in agreement with R. Cook! Must be my a broken watch is right twice a day week.
Trust me [really, you can on this topic] the trail leads to a v-e-r-y bi-partisan set of derelicts. It really IS "institutional" ... for example: where do ex-congress critters and agency honchos go when they leave their jobs? Hello?
For those who just have to hate Bush 43...and I am not one of those per se ... you like to pot shot Rumsfeld and Cheney, right?
Oh, wait...they began in the Nixon administration West Wing and never left town. Dems have their own collection. Samo samo.
BTW...the latest thing in DC is to have your own clandestine email account with a pseudonym [and ISP] untraceable to you...if you don't have one, you're an idiot. I had mine [and still do] way back in the late 90's and I was hardly the first. Best plan is one official email for your organization and another for congresspersons. You really dumb ... have another for contractors, pundits, etc...but be careful, they WILL rat you out push come to shove. Bet the farm on it.
It is very hard not to be a whore in DC, civilian or military. You need to defend yourself and keep your ethics in order, and those should not be situational.
Once reason I like to read here is because I actually believe most of all y'all believe what you say and live it...e.g., walk the walk. Fact is all y'all have changed my mind more often than you might imagine. Thank you for that.
machine said...
Ya burnt...by the Colonel!
Go ahead...makeup another reason...
No, I rebutted him.
Colonel Angus said...
Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator, maker of aggressive war, and financier and sponsor of terrorism gone.
What terrorists was Saddam sponsering? As for brutal dictator, I wasn't aware that was a casus belli for us.
When it means waging aggressive war, it was.
As for sponsoring terror, payments to suicide bombers?
Here's one from Black Rock.
Also his friendship with Abu Nidal.
And, of course, there's always Salman Pak.
Al Qaeda gutted and discredited in the Moslem world. *
Yeah. The Moslem world really hates those guys.
Pew Research good enough?
Iran flanked on both sides. *
Why is this a good thing and why should we care? I mean other than putting American troops in range of their nukes when they develop them?
The word envelopment ring any bells?
And, until we elected Nitwit in '08, the idea was to keep the Dinner Jacket from getting nukes.
Oh, and tell the mindless automaton, burnt that.
Everyone killed in Benghazi was a white man. Women are involved in Cleveland. White men by definition can never be considered victims by this administration.
Representative Meadows has nailed it, and Nordstrom, Thompson, and Hicks have affirmed it...the decisions are really made at the senior levels in contradiction of the ARB findings blaming "career" personnel.
Don't say I never mentioned that before today. Recall my comment about not trusting anyone above the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (05) versus senior ranks in SES, FSO, and Flag ranks (07-10).
Question for Hillary supporters as I am looking for a best case scenario explanation. According to the testimony, the approval for substandard security at a diplomatic facility has to come from the Secretary of State, what is your best explanation for why she approved it? I have been trying to think of one and have come up empty.
How come democrats are not asking questions?
I started watching about a half hour ago.
phx said...Too funny. It's like you're playing the role of Jonathan Winters in The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! "We've GOT to get organized!"
A better way to put it would be to resist the impulse to wrestle with pigs. There is nothing to be learned from it and while perhaps mildly entertaining at first most spectators rapidly lose interest.
B said...
Rusty said...phx said...Well let's see if they're going to bring down the Obamam administration.
I don't read his comments except unavoidably en passant but I'll address your addressing one of them.
Any conservative giving the matter some serious thought should not advocate Obama being impeached. He is a known quantity and although he is still capable of great damage it can and will be reversed. The damage that someone like Joey Giggles could do if he stepped into the top spot may not be.
Because I believe, deep in my heart, unlike comrade Bob, phx has the capacity to learn.
Hicksmas!
Sherrill Mills?
The Sherrill mills?
The Sherrill Mills that defended Bill Clinton at the Impeachment trial, is at the Department of State.
Nothing to see here.
once again, Infowars.net is not a legitimate source....
so you did homework all day for nuffin....
garage mahal said...
Hicksmas!
Not sure what you meant there...BUT don't make a fool of yourself, I know you are better than that. [lacking anything else, I love your dog and if I ever come to Madison again, I want to meet him].
As someone who has been on the line in government criminal and political investigations, I AM telling you, Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom are the real deal and telling the truth to the best of their ability. Fact is, I am both astounded and proud that our government has given them a forum. Many never get the opportunity.
If Hillary is smart, and I suspect she is, she will STFU on this subject from here forward. We all know now, after today in particular, that she knew the truth at 0200 AM 12 sep 2012. Who yanked her cord after than is what is at issue?
The one and the same!
“We cannot uphold the rule of law only when it is consistent with our beliefs,” Mills argued that day. “We must uphold it even when it protects behavior that we don’t like or is unattractive or is not admirable or that might even be hurtful.”
The BBC wrote: “She slapped down both the obstruction of justice charge and the House case that leaving Mr. Clinton in office would undermine the rule of law.”
How do you cut the gordian knot of "Why Benghazi?" By understanding that, from its president's standpoint, America deserved to be attacked. Ergo Hussein's inaction: not because he was paralyzed; because he was PLEASED.
Summarizing Hillary:
"I take full responsibility, but I'm not going to hold anyone accountable. It was them who were responsible for security."
From some Utah Republican.
Jodie Arias has been found guilty of 1st degree murder!
Oh, wait...we're talking about Benghazi, right? Somebody tell the MSM, including fucking Fox News.
I know cuz I watch the Jodie shit on closed caption mode and listen to C-Span live....on the link priovided here. Yay Ann!!
Since when was the mindless automaton the arbiter of what is and isn't a legitimate source?
Didn't cite InfoWars, whatever that is.
I did cite Pew, CBS, Fox News, Townhall, and the Wall Street Journal.
I take it what's valid is what doesn't show him up?
Ya burnt?
PS I hope this is really on sale someplace.
PPS If the mindless automaton is looking for more terrotist connections with Saddam, there's a ton of 'em.
I just skimmed the cream.
Just start with Saddam paying terrorists, then go Saddam Abu Nidal, and Saddam Salman Pak.
If he really wants to beat himself up, he can try Saddam Zarqawi.
machine said...
once again, Infowars.net is not a legitimate source....
You're funny dude.
guess who said this?
The spread of environmental problems or diseases across national lines -- we are going to have to, in other words, find ways to cooperate, to keep the organized forces of destruction that are taking advantage of the Internet, the technological revolution, the freedom of travel and the freedom of movement, access to computers and moving money around and all that -- there will always be organized forces of destruction.
That is fundamentally what is at stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today. I don't want you to look at this backward through the prism of the Gulf War and think it's a replay. I want you to look at it forward and think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the saran gas was released; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms.
---Remarks by President Clinton at a Democratic National Committee event, Sacramento Capital Club, Sacramento, CA, November 15, 1997
It kind of sucks to have your silly, ignorant, worldview, doesn't it?
Not sure what you meant there
Remember Fitzmas?
Rep Cummings [Maloneny is not worth mentioning] ...anyone else have an urge to just kick the shit out of him?
machine said...
so you did homework all day for nuffin....
Guess which Administration's "officials" were saying this to Time magazine?
officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them."
-- "America the Vulnerable," Time, November 24, 1997.
It kind of sucks to have your silly, ignorant, worldview, doesn't it?
Mills is the Clintons John Dean.
Not the John Dean we know now, of course.
Oh crap, a Democratic President talking about Iraq and terrorism!
It matters to you, to your children and
to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq, but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue.
It kind of sucks that the Internet is forever, huh machine?
Democraps have displayed nothing but partisan bullshit. They are not interested in the truth, just keeping the lie up and covering for their sacred cow.
Everyone killed in Benghazi was a white man.
Yeah, but the Ambassador was gay! Doesn't that count for something?
Working to change the World's opinion of war criminals, one basement at a time!
Nice ring to it...good luck with that.
garage mahal said...
Remember Fitzmas?
Not really, but upon research: Really? That is pathetic.
I thought you were better than that. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of administration. You just flunked the test of giving a shit regardless of party.
Thanks Matt. I would like to say it's not going to damage me in the least one way or the other.
Not directly. But the whole country is better off when those in power must face consequences for deceit and malfeasance.
Aridog said...anyone else have an urge to just kick the shit out of him?
All of them. All of the democrats on that panel (except Connolly). None of them give a fuck about the reasons why Americans were consigned to die if it effects their political calculus.
If it were international politics I could understand and accept scenarios where that has to be the tough call but no one is even obliquely implying that. This is about callous decisions made in the interest of national politics.
The best that could be surmised is that the decision making held out the hope that the KIA would be limited to the initial consulate assault and the political fallout contained. That is a damned low bar for what the best might be.
When a politician is in harms way the politicians friends swarm to the rescue. When foreign service officers, soldiers and CIA agents are in trouble the politicians and their friends leave them to die. What difference does it make?
I thought you were better than that. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of administration.
All one can really do is sit back and watch the spectacle of republicans falling all over themselves over Benghazi.
Ya know, if Bush had been more popular at the end of his term, McCain could have rode into the White House on his vacating coattails. Then Obama, Clinton and Rice would never have been in a position to botch and cover up so badly.
So...
I blame Bush.
machine said...
Working to change the World's opinion of war criminals, one basement at a time!
Translation:
I hate facts!
Nice ring to it...good luck with that.
Guy named Shakespeare a few years ago said the truth will out.
So, keep talking; keep up the "La la la la la, I can't hear you!!".
You won't be able to stop it, but you will succeed in making yourself look like that much bigger an ass.
PS What happened to the vote stealing machine in SC-1?
Oh, that's right.
They have a voter ID law there.
Man, just not your day, is it?
garage mahal said...All one can really do is sit back and watch the spectacle of republicans falling all over themselves over Benghazi.
Just like the other democrat assholes on that panel you don't give a fuck about the reasons why Americans were consigned to die because it effects your political calculus.
There are times when you reveal just how plastic your ethics are when it comes to your politics, garage, and its a disconcerting glimpse into just how fucking ugly you can be.
I know some of you like garage but I have never understood why. This is the REAL garage. Party uber alles!
It is painfully obvious that the Obama Administration screwed up big time. So much so that they convinced an Ambassador (who, as far as we know, had no involvement with the screw up) ruin her career by peddling lies about 'the Youtubez' immediately after whatever it is the administration did. Though Hillary surely has some blame, this one goes to the top. How do we know? Because if it stopped at Hillary, Obama would have thrown her under the bus right away.
Yet, here is garage acting like it is no big deal and trying to deflect to nothing. Pathetic. Be an AMERICAN first, you douchebag. Care about the truth for fuck's sake. What a sad waste of space.
The US made no effort to defend its ambassador, and despite the rhetoric of the President and then Secretary of State, has made no effort since then to track down and punish the people responsible for the murder of the ambassador and three other Americans.
I don't think it's a bad thing to find out what went wrong and why. That's how you learn.
If you're capable of learning.
Leaves out garage and a whole lot of other Democrats, apparently.
if I understand correctly, a president named Hussein refused to send/possibly prevented help when a consulate was being attacked by islamic militants. he's right. he doesn't look like the other presidents on dollar bills.
What I don't get is WHY garage, machine, etc. spew the things they say. Who do you think you are fooling? Do you LIKE making asses of yourselves and your party? I can't imagine why they purposely say such stupid and transparent things. Just dumb.
B said...
The best that could be surmised is that the decision making held out the hope that the KIA would be limited to the initial consulate assault and the political fallout contained. That is a damned low bar for what the best might be.
I think this is pretty close, but consider that they believed or hoped the assault was intended to take hostages rather than kill, a la the Iranian Embassy takeover.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा