May 22, 2014

"Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup."

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans. So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp."

So begins the article in Politico. What's supposed to be surprising here? Obviously, the Democrats care about the effect on the investigation on upcoming elections, and they've been trying to figure out whether their attacks on what the Republicans are doing will be more effective from the outside or the inside. I suspect the wavering position on whether or not to participate — assuming it wasn't always only theater — has to do with the whether one focuses on the 2014 elections or looks further ahead to 2016. If the Clintons sent what Politico tellingly terms a "We need backup" message, they were trying to drag the House Democrats away from their immediate concern about winning their districts this fall and into the service of Hillary Clinton's 2016 interests. Think about why staying out of the hearings seems like a good position for fighting to win this October, but getting friendly faces on the inside is so important to the longer game of Hillary's winning the presidency in 2016. Is she not woman enough to face down that panel of Republicans on her own? She needs Elijah Cummings and company to back her up?

"We need backup" is a reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi.

113 comments:

Gahrie said...

In a sane world, hillary would have vanished from public view in a storm of shame and disgrace.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

"We need backup" is a reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi.

This is a fucking outrageous lie that even Republican politicians have disavowed.

This lie is only being repeated by people with no moral core.

MadisonMan said...

I can't help but think this is normal everyday behavior in DC, regardless of who is in office, or what problem is being discussed.

RecChief said...

That kind of ends the speculation on whether she is running or not, doesn't it?

Bill Crawford said...

I'm afraid it's too much to ask these people (Hillary) to sit down with a dogged interviewer(Jake Tapper, for instance) and patiently answer questions until the subject is exhausted.

She'll either come across as reasonable and the interviewer as a jerk, or be revealed for what she really is.

jr565 said...

We need backup is also what was said by the people in the embassy at benghazi. But backup never came. Hence the scandal of benghazi.

Mark said...

Has Hillary ever shown competence at anything other than trading cattle futures?

Brennan said...

You know who doesn't need backup - Joe Biden.

Humperdink said...

They are terrified of Trey Gowdy.

Trey Gowdy is about undergo a colonoscopy by the DNC and the national media. But I repeat myself.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Disgusting.

garage mahal said...

"We need backup" is a reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi.

This, of course, has been debunked countless times. But it doesn't matter, nothing can stop a bad case of Benghazirhea.

Tank said...

By the people Pelosi appointed, particularly Cummings and Schiff, it is clear that their job is too sabotage the hearings in any way possible.

Is it racist to call Cummings a stooge and a demagogue? Whatever.

After his coordination with the IRS on their attacks on conservative groups, Cummings should be in jail. Why isn't he in jail? Why? Why? Why?

SGT Ted said...

The Cult of Personality is all the progressives have. They certainly don't rely on competency or any sort of honesty or self-reflection.

AntiBathos said...

Trey Gowdy must be one of the cleanest guys in politics because if there were any dirt, the Clintonistas would have it out in the MSM by now.
I recall my father (a DOJ attorney at the time) telling me in 1968 that Eugene McCarthy must be the cleanest man in politics. I asked why and he said that it had been 30 days since McCarthy said that J Edgar Hoover should resign and absolutely no dirt had appeared in the papers.
I expect the Democrats to make this personal from the outset then blame the GOP for the tone. We will have to read Dana Milbank to get the Dem zeitgeist of the moment as this unfolds.

mccullough said...

Nancy Pelosi, old white woman, helping Hillary, old white woman. Maybe Diane Feinstein can pitch in.

Lean In, just not too much or you'll break your hips if you fall.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I look forward to the post sometime in 2016 when you tell us how the Republican nominee lost you and you vote for the conniving bitch.

Strelnikov said...

Seriously poor word choice but what do you expect from The Smartest Woman in the World (tm)?

bleh said...

I agree about the wording. They almost couldn't have put it worse.

cubanbob said...

In a sane world, hillary would have vanished from public view in a storm of shame and disgrace."

It says a lot about the American electorate and not in a good way.

damikesc said...

I think it's too late for backup now. They should probably just leave her to die...metaphorically speaking.

james conrad said...

I really doubt Hillary was calling the shots on Benghazi. It seems more likely to me that Obama campaign people were and, still are. That's the problem with this administration, it's ALL about the next campaign.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

"Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup."

Always useful to look for missing, or extra, adjectives.

Here, the word 'Republican' is used as an adjective before the word 'investigation', to imply nefariousness. And without a smidgen of evidence, of course. Shame.

Mark Nielsen said...

Wouldn't it be refreshing if, instead of raw political calculation, they actually cared about getting answers to some of the fundamental questions about what happened? Even more so with the IRS targetting story.

lemondog said...

If the Clintons sent what Politico tellingly terms a "We need backup" message, they were trying to drag the House Democrats away from their immediate concern about winning their districts this fall and into the service of Hillary Clinton's 2016 interests.

Sweeten the pot with some Clinton campaign cash, yes?

damikesc said...

This is a fucking outrageous lie that even Republican politicians have disavowed.

Was ANY attempt made to save them during the eight hour siege?

No?

Then there is no lie. Backup was requested and President Empty Suit was too preoccupied to deal with it and Sec of State Incompetence couldn't be bothered.

You protest WAY too much.

This, of course, has been debunked countless times. But it doesn't matter, nothing can stop a bad case of Benghazirhea.

Note how identicalthe postings from the Left are?

Unknown said...

I just realized that AReasonableMan is not short for "a reasonable man" but rather is short for "areasonable man"

I thought when it happened that Ms. Clinton was noticeably disengaged from the administration's response. I assumed that either she was (1) not-so subtly offering a protest to Obama at the poorly designed talking points which she could not in good conscience try to advance, (2) protesting the process that removed her from responding to criticisms of her office and actions or (3) realizing it was going to be like the Uncle Remus tar-baby (or maybe Bill realized, since I think he has better political sense than "what difference does it make").

Original Mike said...

"This is a fucking outrageous lie that even Republican politicians have disavowed."

I don't understand. Those under attack didn't want help?

"Don't trouble yourselfs. We got this"

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Republican Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said, “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents. We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

Anyone repeating the 'stand down' lie is beneath contempt. Willing to slander their own military in a pathetic and transparent attempt to gain partisan advantage.

Bruce said...

This is a fucking outrageous lie that even Republican politicians have disavowed.

In the sense that the administration denies sending any kind of "stand down" order, your statement is true.

In the sense that our embassy was under deadly fire, that the administration knew it was happening in real time, that the people there asked for help, and that no actions were taken in the over 8 hours it took for them to be killed, well... I'd say that definitely counts as a failure to respond to request for backup.

Beorn said...

@damikesc

I think you are overlooking the FACT that President Lightbringer never lies.

Once you accept that proviso, everything else pretty much falls into (a goose-stepping) line.

Original Mike said...

What Bruce (10:42) said. The embassy was under attack, for Christ's sake. ARM is trying to pull a fast one.

Gahrie said...

This is a fucking outrageous lie that even Republican politicians have disavowed

Yeah..beacause no one ever asked for help, and no one died because help never came.

How do you fucking Lefties ever expect rational people to work for you again?

Gahrie said...

This lie is only being repeated by people with no moral core.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

The Left has no standing to preach about morality.

Skeptical Voter said...

Well when you sort all the Garage Mahal and "Reasonable Man" bluster, the best that they can claim is that there is no evidence that the State Department asked the DOD for help.

So the cookie pushers in striped pants in Washington didn't ask for help.

That does not speak to the question of whether the boys in Benghazi asked for help and said "we need backup". I suspect that when people are hitting the compound with mortars a truly reasonable man (our "Reasonable Man" need not apply in this case) might call and ask someone for help. I mean I would. What about you Garage?

damikesc said...

Anyone repeating the 'stand down' lie is beneath contempt.

Did anybody say "Stand down"? We'll never know.

That wasn't what said here, either.

""We need backup" is a reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi."

Not that somebody said stand down. Just nothing was done while Americans got slaughtered, an issue you seem uninterested in. They were told to stay where they were, which is different in terms of rhetoric, but not in terms of outcome.

Willing to slander their own military in a pathetic and transparent attempt to gain partisan advantage.

Guess who is the final word on stand down?

The President. If he says stand down OR go, the military does it.

So, since Obama didn't give enough of a damn to do anything, he is ultimately responsible.

Which, to him, means no negative repurcussions except for the people who criticized his handling.

Drago said...

Perhaps ARM should direct some of his ire at robert cook and the left in general for their astonishing recklessness in accusing Ronald Reagan of actively conspiring with the iranians to keep American citizens hostage longer in order to win an election.

Fred said...

The more interesting question is, given the level of military spending the US has, why our armed forces were so out of position to respond to a world hotspot in which a US Ambassador was undertaking a secretive mission? I'd like to know what we are getting for our tax dollars spent on the military, and why the military wasn't ready with at least *some* contingency plan if the Benghazi mission went pear-shaped. I mean, that's a fair question, right?

RecChief said...

"We need backup" is a reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi.

This is a fucking outrageous lie that even Republican politicians have disavowed.

Disavowal by a politician means nothing.

Also, you're saying those men didn't request backup/extraction/any kind of response? Or are you saying that a response was planned but didn't get there in time?

We'll never know, will we? I mean we still don't know where the commander in chief was...

grackle said...

This brought a chuckle from me:

Lean In, just not too much or you'll break your hips if you fall.

Good old folks joke.

Trey Gowdy must be one of the cleanest guys in politics because if there were any dirt, the Clintonistas would have it out in the MSM by now.

Beware the baleful eye of Gowdy.

Trey Gowdy is about undergo a colonoscopy by the DNC and the national media. But I repeat myself.

Subtle humor. I love it.

I really doubt Hillary was calling the shots on Benghazi.

I've been thinking similar thoughts.

I thought when it happened that Ms. Clinton was noticeably disengaged from the administration's response. I assumed that either she was (1) not-so subtly offering a protest to Obama at the poorly designed talking points which she could not in good conscience try to advance, (2) protesting the process that removed her from responding to criticisms of her office and actions or (3) realizing it was going to be like the Uncle Remus tar-baby (or maybe Bill realized, since I think he has better political sense than "what difference does it make").

Or maybe ALL of the above.

… our embassy was under deadly fire, that the administration knew it was happening in real time, that the people there asked for help, and that no actions were taken in the over 8 hours it took for them to be killed, well... I'd say that definitely counts as a failure to respond to request for backup.

Someone in the military chain of command should have had the balls to send help, instead of apparently dithering because Obama was preoccupied with other things and couldn't be bothered. If that had been done that officer might be a national hero today.

But they evidently wrote them off as dead meat at the outset not expecting they would last as long as they did. It's a stain on our higher military command.

RecChief said...

Anyone repeating the 'stand down' lie is beneath contempt.

except a failure to respond isn't the same as a 'stand down order'.

The failure to respond could simply be spending time in debate prep rather than taking an active part in the situation.

nice try you fucking hack, you're beneath contempt.

Andy Freeman said...

> We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

"We have no evidence" is not the same as "it didn't happen".

Moreover, even if the State Department didn't delay the decision, there was no decision to deploy. We know that some of those assets were ready to go and that none of them went, despite requests from the folks on the ground.

They asked for backup and didn't get it. We don't know why or who delayed, but someone did.

Sam L. said...

Backup--Could Politico be subtly trying to torpedo Hillary! by using that word?

I note AReasonableMan and garage mahal seem unreasonable on this.

HoodlumDoodlum said...


AReasonableMan said...

Anyone repeating the 'stand down' lie is beneath contempt. Willing to slander their own military in a pathetic and transparent attempt to gain partisan advantage.


I'm glad you view slandering the military for partisan advantage as beneath contempt. I won't ask anything about former presidential candidate Kerry as a follow up. I will point out that the phrase the Prof. used, "the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup" is not synonymous with the "stand down order" lie against which you're so vigorously fighting. If the US personnel in Benghazi requested help/backup and it didn't get there in time to save them all then that is certainly a failure to respond if you define respond as "respond reasonably successfully." Pointing out that help did eventually arrive (too late) isn't really an answer.

Michael K said...

"This is a fucking outrageous lie that even Republican politicians have disavowed. "

"Anyone repeating the 'stand down' lie is beneath contempt. Willing to slander their own military in a pathetic and transparent attempt to gain partisan advantage."

I am more impressed with the opinion of a retired Foreign Service Officer .

a lot of things about the Benghazi disaster deeply trouble me.

One in particular stands out: The breaking of the bond between Americans sent to do dangerous things in dangerous places and the government that sent them. Lots of us have served in dangerous posts. Yes, of course, in the Foreign Service there is a band of officers whom I call the "Pierre Cardin crowd" because of their penchant for London, Paris, Rome, and Washington. Most of my friends in the Service, however, definitely belonged to the Cockroach-Terrorist-Iguana crowd. We wanted to go to the tough and rowdy posts. We went, however, with the knowledge that if the poop smacked the fan, our folks would come get us or at least make the effort. We had a very close bond with our military colleagues; we deeply respected their skill, capability, and courage. They, in turn, often thought we were nuts, but admired us for going to live in the places we did, and to work there with what struck them as minimal security. That bond was shattered in Benghazi by the National Command Authority; remember, even the hapless Jimmy Carter approved a far-fetched and dangerous rescue operation for the hostages in Teheran.

richard mcenroe said...

Bill Crawford -- She did answer questions and did reveal what she is.

Can you imagine a military commander, or fire chief, or the CEO of an airline when people he was responsible for died in horrible circumstances, saying, "at this point, what does it matter?" What kind of defective human being has that mind-set?

richard mcenroe said...

"That kind of ends the speculation on whether she is running or not, doesn't it?"

Seriously, who else do the Democrats even have?

richard mcenroe said...

A Reasonable Man (feh) you do realize the State Department is not in the US Military's chain of command, right? Stand-down orders would have come from the White House. And we know they were sent.

garage mahal said...

Willing to slander their own military in a pathetic and transparent attempt to gain partisan advantage.

They do not care. As every lie gets debunked they just roll out another lie.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Andy Freeman said...
> We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

"We have no evidence" is not the same as "it didn't happen".


So now you are calling the military chain of command a bunch of liars? Are there no limits to your partisan hackery?

richard mcenroe said...

AReaonableMan... so, Reezy, if there was no wrongdoing on the part of the State Department, if there was nothing to be held accountable for, why did Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Secretary of State, go on TV and lie about the nonsensical video> Why did she repeatthat lie right to the faces of the bereaved standing over the coffins of their dead?

Why would she do that, Reezy?

Curious George said...

Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Four eggs in Obama's Benghazi omelette.

Original Mike said...

"So now you are calling the military chain of command a bunch of liars? Are there no limits to your partisan hackery?"

Andy threw ARM a life line and he grabbed it.

garage mahal said...

" Stand-down orders would have come from the White House. And we know they were sent."

Report: Marine commander says no stand-down order in Benghazi attack

House Committee Report: No Stand Down Order Given

Lawmakers: No stand down order given in Benghazi attack

Mark Nielsen said...

Here's why we need the hearings: we don't know the answer to either of these questions.

(1) Where was the POTUS during the events on September 11?

(2) Who put the video story into the talking points and sent Susan Rice out to spread the word?

Even ARM and GM should admit that those questions ought to be answerable, and are pertinent. Maybe they know the answers. If so, guys, let's hear your answers. If not, then admit that we need the hearings and ought to expect answers.

Rusty said...

Are there no limits to your partisan hackery?

The very definition of irony.


Anyone repeating the 'stand down' lie is beneath contempt.

In other words they're onto something.

The decision not to send backup starts at State not DOD.



Lnelson said...

Hillary can probably throw a baseball better than her former boss. And the pantsuit is practically a uniform.

Lnelson said...

Pantsuits are also excellent for dodging bullets on tarmacs while deplaning.

Michael said...

ARM:

You are correct. There was no request for backup. There was also no response to a real time attack. The reason there was no response is said to be that the military could not get there in time.

In time for an action that had no stated time limit.

I didn't jump into the river to save the child because I didn't think I could get to her in time.

Lnelson said...

I don't think she wore pantsuits back in 73 while unethically suppressing evidence on the Watergate investigation.

Don't remember if she was into pantsuits while bringing up false charges to fire the travel office guy.(Did he ever get his life back?)

Lnelson said...

Michael said...
I didn't jump into the river to save the child because I didn't think I could get to her in time.



Sounds like Ted Kennedy wrote the playbook for modern progressives.

garage mahal said...

"There was also no response to a real time attack."

CIA rescue team arrived in less than 30 minutes:

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ordered two Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams (or “FAST platoons”) to deploy from their base in Rota, Spain, to Libya, as well as two teams of special operations forces to Benghazi. But these forces arrived too late, as Americans had already been evacuated by previously deployed the CIA teams.

holdfast said...

""We need backup" is a reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi.

This, of course, has been debunked countless times. But it doesn't matter, nothing can stop a bad case of Benghazirhea."


Huh?

Did the folks on the ground ask for backup (or extraction)?

Yes

Was backup sent?

No

Were they extracted?

No

Now I don't know why no backup was sent - was it Obama, Clinton or some military officer who just denied it on his own hook? Maybe Obama and/or Clinton were given bad advice by the military. Maybe the military genuinely belived that they could not help. More likely they thought the attack would be over quick, but instead it dragged on for hours and hours. There are major US bases in Italy - those bases have planes, choppers and guys with guns. Maybe the military was unwilling to think outside the box, but I am betting that a platoon of Air Force security police could have kicked the asses of some ragtag Libyan protesters. Just because you don't have Delta Force doesn't mean the cupboard is bare.

If the military is really so unready that they couldn't deploy a platoon of grunts a few hundred miles on less than 12 hours notice, then that'a a major failure of policy and/or readiness. Not all of that is directly Obama's fault, but it would require him to at least have fired some flag officers in the aftermath. But of course he just acts surprised ("I saw it on TV same as you" (note, fire whoever does the presidential daily briefing)) and outraged ("I'm mad as hell") for about five minutes, and then decides that it's all over and any further questions are off-limits and racist. And the MSM dutifully nods. And nothing is done, nobody is held to account. Until the next incident (not scandal, because Obama doesn't have scandals. Ever).

holdfast said...

Airily dismissed by Jay Carney does not actually equal "debunked".

Assume that there was no stand-down order given by anyone. Why wasn't there a "go and get them" order given by somoene? Does America have the word's most powerful military, or just the world' most lethargic. Since Libya is the very epitome of the "Pottery Barn Rule" applied to Obama, why was there no contingency planning and reaction force? Who screwed up and got fired for it? At least FDR, for all his faults, knew how to fire officers who couldn't cut the mustard, and not just those who dissed the President in Rolling Stone.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

garage mahal said...
They do not care. As every lie gets debunked they just roll out another lie.


"[They told the stories at times] they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."
Hey, just some stuff he heard, you konw? Not like the guy'd be nominated to run for a high office one day. What's slander, really, up against justice you guys? There's a larger truth at work, right? What was that phrase used about Rather and the AWOL story, fake but accurate? I keep forgetting the rules change when the (R) and (D) switch!

Mark said...

ARM, as I recall some general based in Sicily quite vocally said he had forces ready to go who could have been on-site in under an hour.

I also seem to recall said general lost his command shortly after shooting off his mouth.

Be that as it may, it sure is a shame Barry and Hillary left their good friend under fire for eight hours, after which he was murdered and raped (the order of which as I understand is under some dispute.)

They wasted no time in going after that YouTube guy though.

Don't you dare call anyone else names if you're going to stand with Obama and Hillary on this; you've got no high ground to stand on here.

Mark said...

What the military knew and when they knew it, declassified.

Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony

The military chain of command is headed by one man. I'm calling the men and women who serve under him a bunch of unlucky bastards.

Mark said...

Rusty, what do you think happens to the military professional who says "Screw this, I'm invading Libya"?

Too bad the leader of our armed forces was doing -- wait, what was he doing during the attack? Has anyone heard?

Mark said...

The worst possible decision during the Benghazi incident was to not make any decisions.

And that's what we got.

exhelodrvr1 said...

ARM,
"So now you are calling the military chain of command a bunch of liars? Are there no limits to your partisan hackery?"

Did you tell Hillary that when she accused Gen. Petreaus of lying about the surge?

Drago said...

The lefties will simply not abide anyone showing less than full respect for the military chain of command!

General "Betrayus" is apparently unavailable for commennt.

The left.

They really do operate on a "history begins anew each day" basis.

Mark said...

The one thing Democrats up for re-election can't do on Benghazi is put the blame for the fiasco and its aftermath where it belongs, on Obama, because (especially in the Senate) they need the Obama uber alles voters to vote at least at normal levels.

Hillary is really the only scapegoat that might serve; therefore, Hillary is going to get fragged. No hard feelings, strictly business.

paminwi said...

Additional question to be answered: What the hell was Stevens doing in Benghazi?

Original Mike said...

I really would like to know what orders the Commander in Chief gave that night. Any reasonable man would.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ok, look, I shouldn't have used a John Kerry/Dan Rather squirrel. [Can "squirrel" be the verb for deploying an unnecessary distraction now?] The Benghazi facts as we know them are bad enough. There is not evidence now for one of the worst-case scenarios (ie the White House ordering a stand down) and very few people are pushing that case. The facts/timeline as we know them now are bad enough. ARM and Garage clearly want to conflate all criticism with the most unhinged/unsupported charges, and playing tit-for-tat by pointing out slanders from the Left helps them do so.

The response to the Benghazi attacks was inadequate and failed to protect US citizens. The political response to that failure by the Administration was/is inadequate. The media response has been lackluster and fed into stereotypes of partisan bias. I remember during the last Adminisitration when bad things were said to happen "under the President's watch" and he was judged on the outcome. This President should be held to the same standard.

Kirk Parker said...

Gahrie,

In a saner world, she wouldn't have gotten (nationwide) public attention in the first place.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

garage mahal said...
Report: Marine commander says no stand-down order in Benghazi attack

House Committee Report: No Stand Down Order Given

Lawmakers: No stand down order given in Benghazi attack




Stand down, Garage. Stand down.

Facts. Schmacks. We don't need no stinkin' facts.

Stand down. Stand down.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"as Americans had already been evacuated by previously deployed the CIA teams."

4 Americans weren't. Do we have an explanation for that yet? Have there been any public interviews with the Americans that were evacuated? Why not?

Ann Althouse said...

I think some people here are questioning whether there was, in fact, a request for backup. I don't know the answer to that. My point was that Politico (which is basically liberal, I believe) chose language that played on the belief that there was a failure to respond to a request for backup. I was just providing the reference so people would perceive the acidic snark from Politico.

Original Mike said...

What actions did the President take that night, ARM? (not that I expect a germane response)

n.n said...

Benghazi is evidence of Clinton's incompetence or negligence before the attack. It is evidence of Obama's incompetence or negligence during and after the attack.

Original Mike said...

I think most people here are pointing out that a "backup request" is implicit when our diplomatic team is under assault. Any argument that the request was not made is a red herring.

Dr Weevil said...

As usual, garage mahal is the contemptible liar here. I followed the first link in his 1:02pm comment, labeled "Report: Marine commander says no stand-down order in Benghazi attack".

Having temporarily forgotten the depths of his dishonesty and all around contemptibility, I thought he was linking to a quotation from the Commandant of the Marine Corps testifying that no stand-down order was given by anyone in D.C. What I found was a quotation from a colonel in Libya who denied that he personally had given any stand-down order, and asserted that he had in fact sent help.

That doesn't really answer the question whether anyone in D.C. gave a stand-down order, does it? Or whether anyone higher-ranked than a colonel tried to do anything at all except spin the administration's disastrous incompetence or malevolence for political advantage.

As I've noted before, there's at least a 75% chance that garage mahal is paid to post comments here on behalf of the some leftist group or other. He may even have a GS rank.

garage mahal said...

Having temporarily forgotten the depths of his dishonesty and all around contemptibility, I thought he was linking to a quotation from the Commandant of the Marine Corps testifying that no stand-down order was given by anyone in D.C. What I found was a quotation from a colonel in Libya who denied that he personally had given any stand-down order, and asserted that he had in fact sent help.

Who to believe, a Colonel in a key position in North Africa Command who would know, or your whiny, dip-shit ramblings from a keyboard nowhere near the action? Toughie, I know.

furious_a said...

SEND BACKUP

Well, at least we know that when push cones to shove, the Democrats will initiate a HALO drop to save Hillary! 2016...where otherwise they'd stare helplessly for hours at real-time feeds of one of our consulates being overrun.

I say release the commo logs from assault on the annex. The two security personnel on the roof had the jihadi mortar crew -- who eventually ranged on them -- painted with a targeting laser. They wouldn't have done that (exposing their firing position) unless there was an asset (Spectre gunship or armed Predator) on station. There wouldn't have been an asset on station without a flight crew or controller on comms.
Let's hear who said what to whom in those last moments.

Dr Weevil said...

Whom to believe: a filthy lying son-of-a-bitch who knows that the question was whether any high-ranking person in D.C. (Obama, Hillary, 4-star generals at DOD) gave a stand-down order and pretends that he's answered the question by finding a colonel who denies that he gave one himself. The title of the article to which shitfaced weasel linked implied that it answered the question we all (except lying administration shills) want to know the answer to, but it doesn't come close. What kind of moron doesn't know that "I didn't do X" is not equivalent to "no one did X"?

Did the turd in residence even read the article before linking it? Has he read it now? Who gave him the link? Who provides his pathetic talking points? And why doesn't he know that "whiny, dip-shit ramblings from a keyboard nowhere near the action" is a textbook case of psychological projection. Are we to suppose that he's undercover in Benghazi, or ever has been?

We were all amused when we found out the names of the members of Journolist and mildly surprised that none of them were fired by the supposedly impartial news organizations that still employ so many of them.

I look forward to the day when we find out the names of the various bloggers and commenters who are being paid to shill and lie for their party. Will anyone be surprised if 'garage mahal' is among them?

Fen said...

garage mahal: They do not care. As every lie gets debunked they just roll out another lie.

Thats funny. You are known on this blog for shamelessly floating one lie after another.

How did you type that without your head exploding?

Oh thats right, no shame.

alan markus said...

I did not issue a stand-down order so liberals here are free to use me as proof positive that no stand-dowm order was issued (by me)

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Interesting to watch almost everyone scurrying away from the "stand down" lie. It was not that long ago that it was everywhere on right wing media and even on the the MSM thanks to Laura Logan.

The wingers should be grateful for Repubs like McKeon. Without them the right would have no credibility at all. Unlike Issa he had the brains to recognize that attacking the honesty of the military chain of command and their willingness to defend their own might not be the smartest strategy.

Republican Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said, “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents. We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

Original Mike said...

Interesting to watch ARM scurry away from the question "What actions did the President take that night?" He won't even acknowledge the question.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said...
Interesting to watch almost everyone scurrying away from the "stand down" lie.


Most here didn't put it forward and didn't support it, so there's no scurrying necessary. Your consisent failure to address the actual point though--is that a scamper or a more of a scuttle?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said...
Interesting to watch almost everyone scurrying away from the "stand down" lie.


Most here didn't put it forward and didn't support it, so there's no scurrying necessary. Your consisent failure to address the actual point though--is that a scamper or a more of a scuttle?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
Interesting to watch ARM scurry away from the question "What actions did the President take that night?" He won't even acknowledge the question.


Do you have any idea how many layers of command their are between the president and ground forces? You are being ridiculous. Presidents decide when and how to go to war not everyday battle field decisions. Attacks on the conduct of the response to Benghazi are attacks on the military command. McKeown gets that, which is why he was so dismissive of Issa and his committee.

It is a bald-faced lie to say that most commenters here didn't buy into the 'stand down' bullshit. It was inescapable propaganda streaming out of every orifice of the right, apparently the sole source of information most commenters posses.

Dr Weevil said...

Most of us don't claim to know for sure whether there was a stand-down order. We do know that little or nothing was done, that there was plenty of time to at least try to do something, that the administration (and its shills like gm) have been telling shameless bald-faced lies since the very first day, that no one has been called to account, and that Obama and Hillary (among others) are desperately trying to keep us from finding out something we'd very much like to know.

We don't know who made what decisions that night, who couldn't be bothered to decide anything, what the president was doing while men were dying, whether he was even in a condition to make decisions (drugs or alcohol would explain, but not justify, his passivity), what the dozens of survivors might have to say about their experience if they weren't being kept firmly under wraps, and what it is that the administration is so desperate for us not to know. That very desperation makes us think it must be something truly awful.

Of course, ARM knows all this. So why does he lie? I'd estimate the probability that he's paid to shill for the administration at 60%.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

ARM:

What the President did or didn't do is an interesting question from a political "optics" standpoint (remember My Pet Goat?) but the real question is what actions did the President's Administration take, who within the Administration made the relevant decisions, when, and on what basis. The natural follow up to those questions is to then discuss how the President and his Administration explained what actions were taken and why (ie why they believed the things they did, when they came to certain conclusions, etc). This gets to the "selling" angle. Since this was an issue in the campaign it's, you know, a bit of a big deal. Also, hey, maybe that information could, and I'm just spitballing here, help future Administrations make better decisions and maybe protect our people better in the future?

Rusty said...

ARM @ 10:11

Why wasn't relief sent when it was asked for?

garage mahal said...

Obama ordered that the Defense Department respond to the attack with "all available DOD assets" and try to protect U.S. personnel, Panetta said. Link

General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also testified that Obama's staff "was engaged with the national military command center pretty constantly" throughout the attack. Link

Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible. Link

garage mahal said...

How did George Bush respond to the 12 terror attacks on diplomatic facilities under his watch?

Haha. Just kidding. You didn't fucking care then, and you don't care now.

Original Mike said...

"Do you have any idea how many layers of command their are between the president and ground forces? You are being ridiculous."

I guess you're argument is it's not his job to do anything. And that does seem to be his attitude about everything. Look how he remained unattached in the implementation of his signature initiative. In my opinion, this distancing himself from the affairs of the country is flabbergasting. This man is a poor President and I look forward to the day he is out of office.

Dr Weevil said...

Paid shill garage mahal links to a site that includes the sentence: "Dempsey [of the JSC] then said that a contingent was not sent because the State Department didn't request one."

How does this fit with paid shill ARM's claim in comment 2 that it is "a fucking outrageous lie" to talk about "the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi"?

If the men in Benghazi were calling for help, and help was not sent because the State Department didn't request it and the Defense Department was waiting for them to do so, isn't that exactly the kind of failure that ARM calls a lie?

I don't know if that's exactly what happened. I do know that this administration is desperate to conceal the facts (whatever they are) about who responded or failed to respond, and how, at the time, and to make sure (with the help of lying assholes like gm and ARM) that we never know.

I also know that Bush managed to keep all his ambassadors and (I think) all their staff members alive by providing sufficient protection to our embassies and consulates that terrorists didn't manage to capture them, despite a dozen well-armed tries. Yet another dishonest leftie talking point that actually points up the difference between a competent and honorable president and the incompetent, malevolent, whining loser currently occupying the Oval Office.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
I guess you're argument is it's not his job to do anything.


No. As I said, his job is to make sure we don't start any stupid wars, a simple enough goal that multiple prior presidents have failed utterly to meet. By this criteria alone he is in the top 50% of presidents.

Attacks on the military response to Benghazi are direct attacks on the conduct of military personnel. To suggest that the military just sat on their hands and did nothing when they could have saved lives is a remarkable accusation. Remarkable accusations require at least some semblance of evidence. In two years no such evidence has been provided. On the contrary, Republican led committees have concluded that no such evidence exists. The politicians who actually give a fuck about the military, like McKeown and his committee, get this.

eelpout said...

I link to pertinent info. You have diarrhea of the mouth. You got nothing. Have a great day toad licker.

Dr Weevil said...

"No such evidence exists"? Or such evidence as existed has been destroyed or is being carefully concealed? Why haven't we heard from any of the survivors? Neither gm nor ARM seems to want to answer that, because there is no possible excuse for it.

And why doesn't ARM know that soldiers can't do a damned thing without orders from their civilian commanders, and that Obama's top generals are highly political animals whom he selected for their posts? An awful lot of generals have been fired in the last five years: are the ones Obama kept the most militarily competent? (How would he know?) Or the most adept at sucking up to their civilian masters?

Dr Weevil said...

Hmmm. Obama helped overthrow a cooperative and defanged dictator (Gaddafi) in favor of a bunch of psychotic killers who are not only slaughtering and oppressing their fellow Libyans, but shipping weapons to Mali and other countries to help their pyscho friends slaughter and oppress half a continent: does that constitute 'starting a stupid war'? I think it does, and it's a stupider war than any either Bush was ever involved in.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Again, the most obvious rebuttal of the nonsense being spewed out here is that Republican politicians do not believe it and they see it for what it is, an attack on the competence and integrity of the military.

Dr Weevil said...

It seems to me that "the most obvious rebuttal of the nonsense being spewed here" has been made by me and others against the obvious (and probably paid-for) lies of gm and ARM. Poor guy seems to be projecting again.

Original Mike said...

"Remarkable accusations require at least some semblance of evidence. "

The evidence that they did nothing is that fact that nothing was done. What did they do?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
The evidence that they did nothing is that fact that nothing was done. What did they do?



When Pat Tillman came under friendly fire attack in Afghanistan what did Bush do? What did Cheney do? What did Rumsfield do? Why didn't they call off the attack?

If you think these are stupid questions you are right.

garage mahal said...

Debating conservatives about Benghazi is like debating a retarded child. Utterly pointless.

Dr Weevil said...

There's really only one possible response adequate to the 'arguments' and lies that gm and ARM have expounded here and elsewhere. If we knew their addresses, we could send them both gift-wrapped copies of The Color Atlas of Modern Proctology, in whose pages they would both feel right at home.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

One simple way to know when wingers have a losing argument, the smart ones drop out of the debate early on leaving the dummies to fight on. It's only the true believers at this point.

Dr Weevil said...

Apparently it hasn't occurred to ARM that he's a 'winger' himself, a slavish defender of obvious falsehoods and gross incompetence, as long as it comes from his side of the spectrum. Or does he fondly imagine that the political-spectrum bird only has one wing?

If sticking around for an argument after others have gone shows that people are "dummies", what does that make gm and ARM? Hint: it starts with D and ends with U-M-M-I-E-S. Again, ARM is too stupid to even ask whether his own arguments might apply to himself. As A. E. Housman once said in a book review, "All of his arguments are double-edged, but both edges are quite blunt."

They can go on pretending that others on the right have left in shame for being refuted, when it's quite obvious that they left because gm and ARM are unteachable. If I'm still around, that just shows that shooting fish in a barrel is more fun than most people think.

Don't forget, gm and ARM: you belong in The Color Atlas of Modern Proctology because it includes not just assholes but (think about it) diseased assholes.

Rusty said...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/us-hero-waited-20-hrs-on-benghazi-rooftop-while-obama-called-youtube-went-campaignin

Those goal posts heavey ARM?

B said...

One simple way to know when wingers have a losing argument, the smart ones drop out of the debate early on leaving the dummies to fight on. It's only the true believers at this point.

No. Some stay on because they simply can't let your BS stand unchallenged. The rest of us see less reason to engage the deflections, projections, and primary school talking points marching morons like you and garage spew.

BTW, shithead, get some understanding of military response. If you had any, or a brain in your head for that matter, you would never claim that the military decision to overtly send forces into another nation would be made at any but the highest level.

And your use of Tillman's blue on blue death as an analogy just makes you sound even more the jackass. Tillman died during an already overt military operation and he did so in a time frame that no possible command response higher than local could have reacted. No comparison to Benghazi is apparent to any observer with even casual knowledge of how the military works.

You don't give a fuck about knowing what occurred that night. Garage has been mocking Benghazi for months. The two of you are NO ONE that the military would want speaking for or defending them. Quite the contrary.