Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 04, 2014

The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee. The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public. Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

AMERICANUNITY

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), Chairman of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee that has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Uh, oh" - Sens. McCain and Graham

#1 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-04 03:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Uh, oh" - The Right Wing machine

#2 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-04 03:04 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Key points:

-- Intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened."

-- "A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack."

-- "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind."

-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."

Of course, the right wing media machine and blogosphere will shout from the rooftops "But .. but .. but .. (fill in the blanks)." You know, the usual right wing hyperbole and conspiracy BS.

#3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-04 03:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

But we must scream Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.
over and over again!
Posted by The right wingers on the DR and Talk radio and Fox sleaze news

#4 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-08-04 07:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

If this is the conclusion of a 2-year investigation, so be it.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-04 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Taken together, the deadly violence in Benghazi two years ago has now been investigated by the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the independent State Department Accountability Review Board, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

How many of them uncovered evidence of a cover-up? None.

It's against this backdrop that House Republicans have decided what's really needed is … another committee. It will cost taxpayers several million dollars, and according to the committee's leadership, the goal is to ask questions that have already been answered.
www.msnbc.com

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-04 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Where is aflakker? Did his head explode or did he just snap his caps lock off?

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-04 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

So, they won't have Ben Ghazzi!! to kick around anymore?

Sweet.

Where are the usual suspects to do what JeffJ just did?

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-04 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

All the righties will be long soon to personally apologize for all the horrible things they said about the POTUS, Hilary, Susan Rice et al. Any minute now.

#9 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-08-04 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 7

This is all very interesting but...

BENGHAZI!

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Somehow I foresee the usual retreads still repeating the now disproven talking points unrelentingly.

#11 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-04 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is clear that the Hillary machine has gotten to the members of the House panel and paid them off.

- Ben Gassy Moonbats.

#12 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-04 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

In related news, Darrell Issa was found this morning wandering around aimlessly, glassy-eyed, and mumbling incoherently.

So, unaffected by this news.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-04 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

finally....let's move on.

Whatever mistakes we made on Benghazi, it had turned into a political circus with a huge divide. Everybody became entrenched into partisan divide rather than objectively analyzing the circumstances surrounding the tragic event.

When it gets to that point.....it's difficult to focus on anything.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-04 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

If this is the conclusion of a 2-year investigation, so be it.

Sadly, the righties couldn't be bothered spending 1/10 of the time investigating 9/11 or the Iraq invasion. Then again, righties have ALWAYS accepted what Republican administrations do as Jebbus-Approved, whether it is givingg weapons to nun-rapers or trading 300 Marine lives for a business deal with Hezbollah.

#15 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-04 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Everybody became entrenched into partisan divide rather than objectively analyzing the circumstances surrounding the tragic event.

#14 | Posted by eberly

Let's not play false equivalency here.

The partisan divide was that the right wing went nuts. The left wing didn't. You can't say the bengazi chapter was an equal creation of both parties. It was the creation of the same teab*gger mentality of oppose obama for anything and everything that existed since he took office.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-04 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Nonesence.....................
...........

We know this is not true we have people on the ground telling us they were not allowed to go rescue these people.

We know Hilliary rejected request for more security.

#17 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-04 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

- We know

".... nothing, Jon Snow."

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-04 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doesn't change the fact that we destabilized Libya against our own interests at the behest of foreign powers who are too cheap to pay for their own ammunition.

Doesn't change the fact that an ambassador who clearly didn't understand what what he was dealing with was stationed in a city where the Al Qaeda flag flew freely.

They may not have ignored any specific threats and they may have not passed up a chance to rescue Stephens.

But our entire involvement in Libya was foolhardy from the start. And Stevens being stationed in such an environment was still stupid.

This wasn't an accident or bad luck. The guy wasn't struck by lightning. He died because we opened Libya up to Al Qaeda and like minded groups and then stationed him in the worst possible place where they were most active. And that's only a small part of the tragedy caused by Obama's Idiotic Intervention. Libyans are paying the highest price and will continue to do so for decades.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

- an ambassador who clearly didn't understand what what he was dealing with

Ludicrous. Stevens was a professional diplomat, very experienced in Libyan affairs, who was a true believer in what he was doing in Libya, according to his friends and co-workers.
(you can google that)

Stevens joined the United States Foreign Service in 1991. His early overseas assignments included: deputy principal officer and political section chief in Jerusalem; political officer in Damascus; consular/political officer in Cairo and consular/economic officer in Riyadh.

In Washington, Stevens served as Director of the Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs; Pearson Fellow with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Richard Lugar; special assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs; Iran desk officer and staff assistant in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

He had served in Libya twice previously: as the Deputy Chief of Mission (from 2007 to 2009) and as Special Representative to the National Transitional Council (from March 2011 to November 2011) during the Libyan revolution. He arrived in Tripoli in May 2012 as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.[4]

Stevens spoke English, French and some Arabic.[15]

en.wikipedia.org

Being an isolationist and saying stupid things like, "we destabilized Libya", as if it were not already destabilized, is one thing. Demeaning the dead American Amb as ignorant of his profession is quite another, and unnecessary to float your prejudiced OPINION.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-04 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 7

"Ludicrous. Stevens was a professional diplomat, very experienced in Libyan affairs, who was a true believer in what he was doing in Libya, according to his friends and co-workers.
(you can google that)"

Literally nothing you posted would indicate that he had any practicle experience that would enable him to survive while living among jihadist lunatics who wanted him dead.

"Being an isolationist and saying stupid things like, "we destabilized Libya", as if it were not already destabilized, is one thing."

You're being intentionally deceptive by trying to pretend that Libya was anywhere near the chaotic mess it is now before we got involved. Quit lying.

"Demeaning the dead American Amb as ignorant of his profession is quite another, and unnecessary to float your prejudiced OPINION."

Its not an opinion to say he didn't understand what he was dealing with. Unless you want to contend that he wanted to die.

My only assumption is that he didn't want to die. Given that assumption, he obviously didn't understand that these people had the desire and ability to kill him with relative ease. This was proven by actual events. And still you refuse to learn anything from what happened and try to argue against reality.

The facts are against you, shill. Deal with it.

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"You can't say the bengazi chapter was an equal creation of both parties."

I won't. Geez...quit crying about ---------- for once in your life.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-04 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is the typical we have to win every time and they only have to win once... thing. I'm glad I didn't buy into the conspiracy theories, but I'm also glad they investigated and are releasing the reports. We'll see what the reports say and how much controversy that brings up.

#23 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-08-04 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

- Its not an opinion to say he didn't understand what he was dealing with

lol, people who STILL mistake their opinions for facts.

He knew the danger and was willing to die for his beliefs, he was deeply involved with the Libyan people and their revolution..... I know how foreign that must sound to you, how inconceivable, but it is true.

Friends

www.thedailybeast.com

www.dailykos.com

Letter from his family

www.democraticunderground.com

- shill

Punk.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-04 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

"You can't say the bengazi chapter was an equal creation of both parties."

I won't. Geez...quit crying about ---------- for once in your life.

#22 | Posted by eberly

Then why did you put the blame for the bengazi spectable on "everybody" when it was clearly a --------- creation?

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-04 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stevens has nothing to do with why his "Embassy" was attacked. 25 CIA agents were working out of this "Embassy", kidnapping and torturing their Libyan targets. A local tribe attacked the "Embassy" in order to save a member of their own tribe.

#26 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-04 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#25

learn to read. I didn't "blame" it on everyone. I merely said that everybody became entrenched, which is true (you still have that shovel in your hand, BTW).

You give too much weight to ----------...yes, they'll latch onto anything anti-Obama. I believe Issa made this a spectacle that essentially forced partisanship.

Now, again....I said quit crying.

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-04 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow Corky, those aren't biased sources, LOL!

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-04 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | Posted by boaz

What is your point?

I don't think there is such a thing as an "unbiased news source".

Can you name one?

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow Corky, those aren't biased sources, LOL!

Are you stating that the family didn't write the letter documented on the democratic underground link? What is your point Boaz? Information is either accurate or true to its authors' feelings or it isn't. The place you find it is only relevant if the author has the propensity of trying to pass off his own opinion as accepted fact when it isn't.

If Steven's family isn't qualified to speak about Chris' beliefs and actions as it regards his presence in Benghazi based on what he told them himself, then who exactly is, and what difference does it make where this information is posted from as it regards its veracity on the subject?

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-04 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You give too much weight to ----------...yes, they'll latch onto anything anti-Obama. I believe Issa made this a spectacle that essentially forced partisanship.

#27 | Posted by eberly

Yes you said everybody became entrenched. The ---------- certainly became entrenched into a paranoid fantasy. What did the dems become entrenched into? Reality?

And who who forced the partisanship?

"everybody?"

Be real now.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-04 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"He knew the danger and was willing to die for his beliefs, he was deeply involved with the Libyan people and their revolution..... I know how foreign that must sound to you, how inconceivable, but it is true."

OK so he died for his beliefs. Our involvement in Libya has still been a disaster by any conceivable measure. Stevens was still killed because it was foolish to station him in a city where Al Quada operated openly. You're telling me that he knew this was the case. That doesn't make the situation any better. Whether Stevens didn't understand the crazy risks he was taking or understood the risks and took them anyway isn't that important. Either way he was the wrong man for the job. Dead ambassadors are still counter productive. If you think about it (which I know you are loathe to do), if he knowingly took crazy risks that is even worse than ignorantly taking crazy risks. We never should have gotten involved with a rebel movement that included jihadist militias in the first place. And after the fact someone should have realized that stationing a small group of Americans in a city where the Al Quada flag flies is idiotic. If Stevens understood the dangers and wanted to proceed anyway then someone should have been an adult an overruled him.

This whole intervention has been disastrous on every level as proven by results. Your desperate need to pretend otherwise is sad and utlimately irrelevant. Reality doesn't a give a crap about your loyalty to the letter D.

#34 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#35

The one thing you continually leave out is the reality that what the US does or doesn't do can have both positive or deleterious effects. Second-guessing is always 100% right, but our government often has to pick options out of terrible choices, often of our own making, but sometimes not.

This is not to say that any one action or inaction should be free from criticism, it's just that any criticism has to be balanced with an objective view of what probable outcome and response the alternative choice might have led to as well.

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-04 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-04 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

1) Its not second guessing if at the first hearing our involvement I said it was a mistake.

2) We have no business intervening in Libya so the idea that our "non-intervention" is a choice is based on the false premise that we somehow had some kind of authority to get involved there in the first place.

3) The likely outcome of getting mixed up with a disjointed alliance of militias that included some truly horrible people was very predictable.

#38 | Posted by sully at 2014-08-04 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

1) Its not second guessing if at the first hearing our involvement I said it was a mistake.

I allowed for the fact that you were right. What you're not allowing for is what might have happened had we not intervened.

2) We have no business intervening in Libya so the idea that our "non-intervention" is a choice is based on the false premise that we somehow had some kind of authority to get involved there in the first place.

I see this as ignoring the projected string of events that may have led to an even greater humanitarian crisis and further negative consequences that could have destabilized the region worse than our involvement did.

3) The likely outcome of getting mixed up with a disjointed alliance of militias that included some truly horrible people was very predictable.

And not reaching out to try and find a voice of conciliation and mutual interest may have forced them further into the arms of radical anti-West Islamists than they currently are today.

I'm conceding that you were and are right, but that doesn't mean those of us who didn't join you at the outset were bad actors for seeing a different alternative than you did. I see the same geopolitical chess that every US administration plays. Some we win and others we lose. The final results aren't in yet but they don't look promising as they once did after Qaddafi was deposed. The days have long since passed where the US can sit on the sideline and watch when everything and every region is interconnected by realpolitik.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-04 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"that doesn't mean those of us who didn't join you at the outset were bad actors for seeing a different alternative than you did."

Unlike with Iraq, I never accused anyone of bad intentions. But I have accused them of failing to learn from past events.

#41 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

3) The likely outcome of getting mixed up with a disjointed alliance of militias that included some truly horrible people was very predictable.

Can't think of a war anywhere, that didn't involve getting allied with some truly horrible people. Sometimes we invite them in, other times they are already there. That goes beyond American history FYI.

#42 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-04 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Can't think of a war anywhere, that didn't involve getting allied with some truly horrible people."

Debatable. In this particular case the people I'm talking about also hated us.

It may have happened before where a nation has been fooled into helping people who hate it conquer territory. But it certainly isn't the norm.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-04 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

But... but what about the 400 SAM's that where stolen from the Benghazi consulate?

- Paneocon

#44 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Can someone explain to me how America was involved in Libya? As I recall, it was the British, French, and to a lesser extent Italians who where involved flying air cover, not us.

Obamma may have wanted to get involved, but the American people said "NO!". Public opinion was way against it, so we did nothing (and are still doing nothing).

#45 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can someone explain to me how America was involved in Libya? As I recall, it was the British, French, and to a lesser extent Italians who where involved flying air cover, not us.

Obamma may have wanted to get involved, but the American people said "NO!". Public opinion was way against it, so we did nothing (and are still doing nothing).

Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 06:16 PM | Reply

UNSC Resolution 1973

#46 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 OK, I looked it up. That was a UN resolution, and had nothing to do with the USA. Or Obamma.

And all it did was tighten sanctions and create a No-Fly Zone enforced by Britain and France.

I fail to see Americas' hand in it.

#47 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

We know...

We know...

#17 | Posted by tmaster

Then why didn't your republican committees invite these people to testify?

...we don't know.

#48 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-04 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

And all it did was tighten sanctions and create a No-Fly Zone enforced by Britain and France.

I fail to see Americas' hand in it.

Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 06:28 PM | Reply

It's called helping your allies. Libya was cutting off oil supplies to Europe.

#49 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-04 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#49 It was cutting of oil to Europe? Where did you hear that?

And the resolution passed 10-0, so I just don't see any real "US involvement" here.

#50 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-04 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, the Butthurt lefties on this place should just shoot themselves and save the cops the trouble.

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-04 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Lefties" were right about Benghazi all along. The right, with all their nutty conspiracy theories and hyperbole, were not.

Many of the same Republicans in Congress who slashed funding for embassy and consulate security - despite efforts by then Sec. of State Clinton to convince them not to - were the same folks who started all these hearings (like Issa).

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

#52 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-04 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I wonder how many millions of tax dollars was wasted by that troglodyte Issa and his Teahadist buddy's trumped up crime? All because they fail at winning elections.
What a POS Issa is!

#53 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2014-08-04 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

AU, exactly how much was that budget cut?

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-04 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I kinda like Issa, but he really hasn't accomplished anything from all the hearings and investigations he has been running.

#55 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-04 11:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, the Butthurt lefties on this place should just shoot themselves and save the cops the trouble.

#51 | Posted by eberly a

Your butt is your own and does not belong to any leftie

#56 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-08-04 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

AU, exactly how much was that budget cut?

#54 | Posted by eberly

This was posted above:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration (-$216,000,000). House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
It's insane that Ryan and House Republicans proposed slashing another $216,000,000 for embassy security in FY 2013 following the 2012 attack in Libya. And very hypocritical of them to then rail about Benghazi when they were responsible for slashing embassy security funding in the first place. Specifically, security funding for Libya was cut $1.4 million in 2012.

How do Republicans justify slashing embassy security and everything from NASA to child lunch programs and not extending unemployment benefits in the name of 'deficit reduction' while at the same time proposing tax breaks that will add over $300 Billion to the deficit. Unlike them demanding anything that actually helps the middle class be 'paid for'. The GOP tax cuts are, of course, not paid for.

The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee approved $310 billion of tax breaks, as Republicans defeated Democratic objections to the plan's budgetary costs.
www.bloomberg.com

The GOP talk out both sides of their mouths. Consistently.

#57 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 12:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

The funnest thing about the whole Benghazi hearings was getting to watch the doofus ------------- standing in line so Hillary could spank them... again.

The clown brigade thinks if they jump up and down demanding to know the truth as it is being told to them it means they got to the bottom of it. There was no bottom to get to. Much like Bonehead going on about "the president as got to be responsible for something" hissy fit. Silly theatrics pathetic posturing.

The whole impeachment stems from the fact they cannot stand Obama mopping up the floor with them. They seem to think they if the yell it loud enough or attach "gate"to it... or equate it to a Bush screw up he may actually be doing something wrong.

Obama has had his share of screw ups... but nothing compares to:

Watergate speaks for itself. Dragging the Vietnam war out is well nothing short of heinous.

Reagoonietunes and his 138 convictions not to mention his own by international court. Had Bush the Elder not pardoned Weinberger and Reagan forgot he was ever president he would have been. We wont even go into "Debategate" against Carter. That's guys shopping list of scandals is endless. The Ironic thing is the clowns think of his as their greatest president next to Lincoln.The love raising the debt ceiling and trillion dollar deficits with clowns do it.

Well it wouldn't be prudent to waste too much time on Bush the elder who was in there whilst Reagan was braindeading his way his fianl term... I think it is safe to say that he was one of the biggest floaters the Reagan cesspool.

Then Bush Jr... well know how well that went.

Obama has come no where near the political debauchery the of the clown offerings...oif the past 40 years. But I guess hope springs eternal for the floppy footed ----------- vying for center stooge... I mean stage.

#58 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-08-05 08:39 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Can someone explain to me how America was involved in Libya? As I recall, it was the British, French, and to a lesser extent Italians who where involved flying air cover, not us."

The Euros were pressuring us to get involved because they were worried about their oil supply. Europeans don't pay taxes for things like missiles and bombs. Americans get taxed to provide for their self defense/international aggression needs. They didn't have the ammunition necessary to bomb Libyans effectively. So like the dummies we are, we obeyed orders and helped pave the way for jihadists to carve up Libya.

Its working out for Libyans about as badly as you'd expect.

#59 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-05 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

And what about the video that started this whole riot in Benghazi to start with? Glad to know they got to bottom of it -- was just a simple riot and Susan Rice deserves an apology.

#60 | Posted by ghickey at 2014-08-05 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

#57

so, as I expected, you don't know. you don't even care really. Your interest in this ends where you would have to stop crying about GOP hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is obvious. I'm asking about the actual cuts. not proposed cuts.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-05 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

From the article:
there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration

--
Of course not. He was incompetant on accident.
It is not his fault he is stupid, I blame those who voted for him.

#62 | Posted by Marty at 2014-08-05 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Lefties" were right about Benghazi all along.
#52 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2014-08-04 10:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

"Lefties" claimed the 'riots' with RPG's was the result of a anti muslim film. "Lefties" claimed the 'riots' with RPG's were spontaneous responses to this film.

The facts show these were coordinated attacks by militia's.

You are wrong.

#63 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-05 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm asking about the actual cuts. not proposed cuts.

#61 | Posted by eberly

You're being obtuse. Look it up for yourself. The fact the GOP's proposed 2013 budget cut one nickel from embassy security speaks for itself.

Then, they turn around and propose $300 BILLION in unfunded tax cuts. Ya, the GOP are hyopcrites.

#64 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#64

you're being ignorant. you claimed there were "cuts" not "proposed cuts".

those are 2 different things. GOP hypocrisy aside, this only proves you don't even CARE about the "cuts".....just the hypocrisy.

Why don't you just admit that you're interest ends at the hypocrisy, rather than actual cuts?

stop pretending that actual cuts even matter to you.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-05 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The report tells us what the administration was guilty of or what they were not guilty of but it does not tell us what Issa and the Republicans in Congress are guilty of for attempting to turn a tragedy into a political "gotcha moment." They should be censured for the cynical use of committee investigations as political weapons which is a dangerous practice in a democracy. Especially when dealing with events overseas, with the entire world watching, these investigations undermine the ability of the State Dept. to do its job. Oversight is one thing but this wasn't oversight, this was a witch hunt. Something Republicans are famous for going all the way back to McCarthy.

#66 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-05 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

EBERLY

I've already posted actual cuts ... twice. 2011 and 2012. I don't know what the final figure was for 2013, only that the GOP proposed another cut of $200 Billion plus for FY 2013 .. after the attack on Benghazi.

#52 spelled out exactly how much was cut from security funding for our Libyan embassy security detail in 2012, the year the attack happened.

The GOP budget cuts to embassy security funding, their firestorm about an attack, this report exonerating the WH, and the GOP then proposing another $300 Billion in unfunded tax cuts are horribly hypocritical and embarrassing to the GOP, but it is what it is, and those are the facts.

#67 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was #57 that had the exact figure how much was cut for Libyan embassy security in 2012. But, you'd know that if you read it.

#68 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I've already posted actual cuts"

Lol

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-05 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

The report tells us what the administration was guilty of or what they were not guilty of but it does not tell us what Issa and the Republicans in Congress are guilty of for attempting to turn a tragedy into a political "gotcha moment."

The administration played politics with this from the beginning. They stonewalled up the wazoo. This event called for a serious investigation. What we got was an Issa-lead clown-show. You want to censure Issa? I wouldn't be opposed to that.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why does everything boil down to money? Yet we are drowning in debt, and ever increasing deficits.....

The issue is really about the system Obama and his Administration used to cover up the whole fiasco for political reasons. Embassy's get attacked, people die in those attacks, would 3 or 4 more men really have made a difference? I don't agree with the military options et al.

The budget and events of the evening are just distractions from a broken foreign policy, that has really come to light in the last 1 and a half.

Is it AU's contention that no body would have died had they had more "security"?

#71 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-08-05 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why does everything boil down to money?
#71 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Because capitalism boils everything down to money.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The administration played politics with this from the beginning.
#70 | Posted by JeffJ

Well at least they didn't play politics with it before it even happened, like the PNAC "Pearl Harbor Level Event."

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Embassy's get attacked, people die in those attacks, would 3 or 4 more men really have made a difference?"

It wasn't an embassy. We shouldn't have had an ambassador in Al Qaedaville at all.

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-05 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73

I don't know what you are referring to.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lefties" claimed the 'riots' with RPG's was the result of a anti muslim film. "Lefties" claimed the 'riots' with RPG's were spontaneous responses to this film.
The facts show these were coordinated attacks by militia's.
You are wrong.

#63 | POSTED BY ROBTHOMAS

Lefties took initial reports from a lefty WH as accurate. Are you really THAT surprised?!

HAHAHA!

FTA: The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."

Wrong before, correct now. WTF is your problem? Butt hurt that it is conclusive that B. Hussein is NOT at fault for this situation? He's only at fault for having "faulty talking development"?

HAHAHAHAHA! You partisan hacks REALLY make this place entertaining. Please keep it up. [...]

#76 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know what you are referring to.
#75 | Posted by JeffJ

You don't know what PNAC is? Wow.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know what PNAC (from memory: Project for a New American Century) is.

I don't know what you mean when you say this:

Well at least they didn't play politics with it before it even happened, like the PNAC "Pearl Harbor Level Event."

#73 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I don't get is how a document that, among other things, describes America's military ability to fight 2 wars simultaneously is politicizing an event (I assume you are referring to 9/11) preemptively.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well at least they didn't play politics with it before it even happened, like the PNAC "Pearl Harbor Level Event."

#73 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 04:44 PM | Reply

September 11

#80 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-05 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Unless your definition of 'politicize' differs from mine, I would guess you are a 9/11 Truther, based upon your post.

You never struck me as a 9/11 Truther, hence my confusion.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I don't get is how a document that, among other things, describes America's military ability to fight 2 wars simultaneously is politicizing an event (I assume you are referring to 9/11) preemptively.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

PNAC Needed a Pearl Harbor Event to start their quest for world domination. Dubya politicized 911 so he could wage the Iraq War. That was the plan in 1997.

#82 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-05 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

FOX News has been understandably quiet on this news, but I was REALLY hoping for some balanced coverage on this topic, considering the furor they have helped develop over the last 2 years.

Interestingly enough, they just had someone from the same committee on O'Reilly recently declaring MORE investigations into Benghazi in September. I bet this report puts an end to that plan.

It would REALLY be nice to see FOX News eat some crow, though. At least when MSNBC fncks up big time they chew on that dirty bird on camera. FOX News makes it seem as though it never happened. I wonder when they will have Issa on next and what the topic will be.

Too bad I can't get FOX anymore. Only CNN and MSNBC available. Sooooooooo BORING!!!!

#83 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I don't get is how a document that, among other things, describes America's military ability to fight 2 wars simultaneously is politicizing an event (I assume you are referring to 9/11) preemptively.
#79 | Posted by JeffJ

The document makes the case that the Pearl Harbor Level Event was needed to drum up sufficient public support for war with Iraq.

If you require further assistance connecting the dots, I'm more than happy to help.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

neither party wants you to know what was going on in Benghazi. hence, you will never be told the truth. it's for your own good ya know.

#85 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-05 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

It would REALLY be nice to see FOX News eat some crow, though. At least when MSNBC fncks up big time they chew on that dirty bird on camera.

There's a huge difference between aggressively covering a story and wishing that a person would defecate into the mouth of another person.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

further assistance connecting the dots, I'm more than happy to help.
#84 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Please do, I'm intruiged to see how this discussion plays out with you and JEFF.

#87 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks Larry and Snoof-dog.

I now get the point you were making. It just needed some clarification.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

#86 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Well then you should interpret my post as it was intended to be:

Eating crow (def): Eating crow is an American colloquial idiom, meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proved wrong after taking a strong position (en.wikipedia.org)

#89 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

When I say "politicize", what I mean is 'playing politics' with something for partisan purposes. PNAC wasn't 'playing politics' in the manner in which I think of that activity.

As it relates to Benghazi, I regard 'playing politics' as altering an assessment of what happened in order to obfuscate for political gain (the stupid Youtube talking points). Going further, in the investigative phase, playing politics would be pretty much most words and actions taken by Darryl Issa.

Creating an 'action plan' or a blueprint is not the same thing. I am not defending PNAC by saying this. What I am saying is that based upon actions that constitute how I define 'playing politics', PNAC doesn't fit.

Now, you can make the case that after 9/11 Bush and Co. 'played politics' in order to push a broader agenda.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eating crow (def): Eating crow is an American colloquial idiom, meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proved wrong after taking a strong position (en.wikipedia.org)

You could probably make that case for certain individuals within Fox. Hannity springs to mind as a probable culprit. But I don't know about the entire network.

Like it or not, Benghazi was a legitimate story that warranted pursuit and investigation.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Like it or not, Benghazi was a legitimate story that warranted pursuit and investigation.
#91 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Not to the degree FOX had it going. Please acknowledge that in the least, though I'm not sure you're an avid watcher. I, however, very much am and truly it was two anchors who were exceptions to the rule of Benghazi = Obama's Waterloo.

Shepard Smith and Megyn Kelly are the sole survivors on FOX of integrity-based journalism, I'm afraid. All the rest, from Hannity, O'Reilly, entirety of The Five, Greta, and ESPECIALLY that idiotic group of FOX and Friends were all neck deep in Benghazi sensationalism.

You are correct, the investigation was warranted. *BUT* blaming B. Hussein Obama for the death of an ambassador prior to the investigation, which as done ad nauseam on FOX News, was definitely not warranted. And of course, the eating of crow is the most warranted now than ever has been (arguably of course as Hannity still has not retracted that baseless lie that "U.S. forces have finally found WMDs in Iraq months post invasion," but I'm not holding my breath on that one).

#92 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Beach,

I rarely watch Fox News. Haven't for a long time.

I occasionally watch the Kelly File. I do like her show.

I like Special Report, but I am almost always busy with other things when it is on and thus haven't watched it in years.

I do see clips from a number of shows (not all of them are Fox), but said clips are usually linked on various websites that I visit, particularly RealClearPolitics.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

how I define 'playing politics'

www.quickmeme.com

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

PNAC wasn't 'playing politics' in the manner in which I think of that activity.

You appear to be forcing an unjustifiable divorce between the playbook and the plays themselves.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#97 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

FOX News has been understandably quiet on this news...

...Too bad I can't get FOX anymore.

#83 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2014-08-05 04:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG

So how do you know FOX News has been 'quite'? Clown like behavior.

#98 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-05 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#94 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's been bad. Fortunately, it's one of the reasons I've been watching FOX so much, the Benghazi furor was truly entertaining. The majority of open mouths on that network had B. Hussein guilty from the get go. ESPECIALLY when it was found out that Rice's talking points were false. Once that happened, you would have thought it was B. Hussein that pulled the trigger in Dealey Plaza.

Entertaining, but astonishing at some points as well. Fair and Balanced? HAHAHA!

Not when it came to Benghazi, that's for DAMN SURE!

#99 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#99 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2014-08-05 05:34 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Don't you blame Bush for 9/11?

#100 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-05 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

So how do you know FOX News has been 'quite'? Clown like behavior.
#98 | POSTED BY ROBTHOMAS

Pardon me. I hope that small, insignificant error was too much for you overcome when interpreting the point of my post.

If so, please read the following: YouArePathetic.com

#101 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

*I hope that small, insignificant error wasn't too much...

#102 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

You appear to be forcing an unjustifiable divorce between the playbook and the plays themselves.

#96 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Differentiation is not the same thing as divorce.

Entertaining, but astonishing at some points as well. Fair and Balanced? HAHAHA!
Not when it came to Benghazi, that's for DAMN SURE!

#99 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I'll have to take your word for it - I don't doubt what you are saying.

The Rice talking points pissed me off (still does).
That was the political part of it. The rest was negligence and gross incompetence that is typical with big government and this administration (as well as the previous one) in particular.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't you blame Bush for 9/11?
#100 | POSTED BY ROBTHOMAS

No. Why do you ask?

#104 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

When I say "politicize", what I mean is 'playing politics' with something for partisan purposes. PNAC wasn't 'playing politics' in the manner in which I think of that activity.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's EXACTLY what Dubya did to drum up support for the Iraq War.

#105 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-05 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Rice talking points pissed me off (still does).
That was the political part of it. The rest was negligence and gross incompetence that is typical with big government and this administration (as well as the previous one) in particular.

#103 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Not according to the report: The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis.

If there was reason to believe the talking point was propagated for political purposes, it should have (and undeniably would have) been pointed out by the committee as such. Unfortunately for those holding Obama's nose to the flame over this issue, the talking point was nothing more than poor and inaccurate communication. Sad? Yes. Deplorable? Yes. Politically motivated? Not according to the report. But you and yours can believe anything you like. I still don't believe B. Hussein has any legitimate interest in CJS reform, but his behavior since January 1st of this year speaks differently. I will hold my reservations concerning this most important topic (IMO) until he makes some stronger moves for reform. But until then, I suppose I too will be experiencing similar uncertainty as you do with Rice's talking point.

#106 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did the panel figure out where Obama was and what he was doing while the ambassador died?

#108 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-08-05 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The rest was negligence and gross incompetence that is typical with big government and this administration (as well as the previous one) in particular.
#103 | Posted by JeffJ

If you have evidence that the government's (non-)response to 9/11 was negligence -- rather than deliberate indifference in order to run the play from the PNAC playbook -- please provide it.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It is not his fault he is stupid, I blame those who voted for him.
#62 | Posted by Marty"

Obama - Graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law (Editor of Harvard Law Review), United States Senator, President of the United States.

Marty - likes cheeseburgers and Pabst Blue Ribbon, blogs on the DR.

#110 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-08-05 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

If you have evidence of 'actionable intel' prior to 9/11 that was ignored, please provide it.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you have evidence that the government's (non-)response to 9/11 was negligence

I can cite all sorts of examples of negligence and incompetence that occurred during the Bush administration.

Pre-9/11 lack of 'action' doesn't fit either category.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you have evidence of 'actionable intel' prior to 9/11 that was ignored, please provide it.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ

Is your Google broke?

investigations.nbcnews.com

#113 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-05 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#113

No, my Google isn't broke (sic).

Perhaps your Google is broken.

Google "actionable intelligence" and understand that your link is addressing something far different - namely a memo that suggested that Al Queada was considering hijacking planes and using them as suicide-pilot guided kinetic missiles.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I put 'actionable intel' in quotation marks for a reason.

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the record: I predict we will experience another 9/11-type attack within the next decade. Hell, had the underwear bomber not been completely incompetent, we would have likely had hundreds of deaths, hundreds more wounded and possibly millions of dollars worth of damage to Detroit Metro Airport.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 07:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The CDC should classify Teatardism as a disease. Symptoms include an inability to read and/or comprehend what they read.

#107 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Someone should do a study to see if there's any correlation between strong Tea Party beliefs and a more frequent development of Alzheimer's. Seriously...

#117 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-05 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Since you like to define things as you see fit, what would "actionable intel" look like, JeffJ?

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The right wanted to present the Benghazi case as a crime, I have always wondered what was the motive for this "crime."
I posted on one of the first days after the tragedy that Ambassador Ted Stevens had acted foolishly and that HE was probably the highest official that had made this terrible event possible, they should not have been there. I was mercilessly ridiculed and abused, and now it turns out that is exactly the truth.

#119 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-05 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I can cite all sorts of examples of negligence and incompetence that occurred during the Bush administration.
Pre-9/11 lack of 'action' doesn't fit either category.
#112 | Posted by JeffJ

I agree. Purposefully doing noting so that PNAC might get their Pearl Harbor Level Event is neither negligent or incompetent.

Some might say negligent. PNAC would say that not having a war with Iraq, not cementing American hegemony for this century, would be more negligent.

I suppose the question becomes "negligent to whom?" Letting 9/11 happen was not negligent from the perspective of the PNAC playbook. Quite the opposite, it was necessary.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

WHERE IN THE HELL IS BOAZ AND AFK?

PANEO?

It's like watching rats scurry from a sinking ship.

Once again, Kudos to JEFFJ for sticking around and arguing the points.

#121 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-05 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since you like to define things as you see fit, what would "actionable intel" look like, JeffJ?

#118 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It possesses ALL of the following three attributes:

Where
When
How

The infamous PBD only suggests how. That's it. Actionable intel possesses all 3.

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Google "actionable intelligence" and understand that your link is addressing something far different - namely a memo that suggested that Al Queada was considering hijacking planes and using them as suicide-pilot guided kinetic missiles.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ

Apparently "actionable intelligence" means something completely different to you than it does to me.

The was plenty of intelligence being given to the White House as noted in the headline: Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings

Tenet wrote about how after being briefed by his counterterrorism team on July 10 -- two months prior to the attacks -- "I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk -- the one with a direct line to Condi Rice -- and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qaida threat."

Tenet said he could not recall another time in his seven years as director of the CIA that he sought such an urgent meeting at the White House. Rice agreed to the meeting immediately, and 15 minutes later, he was in Rice's office.

An analyst handed out the briefing packages Tenet had just seen and began to speak. "His opening line got everyone's attention," Tenet wrote, "in part because it left no room for misunderstanding: ‘There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!'"

They KNEW there was going to be an attack and the CIA could not discount that this attack was going to be on the US homeland.

Guess that just wasn't "Actionable" enough for you (or Bush).

Cressey (who was Clarke's deputy) remains critical of the lack of a response going back to the first week of the administration, saying the counterterrorism team at the National Security Council and experts elsewhere in the government were "butting our heads against the wall" in an effort to get a meaningful response from the White House.

They did finally get a meaningful response... 6 days AFTER 9/11.

Rice, Tenet wrote, reacted positively to the briefing and asked her counter terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, if he agreed with the assessment. Clarke said he did, and Tenet said he and his aides left the meeting feeling that Rice understood the threat. However, he wrote, the White House never followed up on the presidential finding that Tenet had been asking for since March, authorizing broader covert action against al-Qaida. That finding was signed by President Bush on Sept. 17, six days after the attacks.

#123 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-05 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The right wanted to present the Benghazi case as a crime,

I never regarded it as a crime.

I thought promulgating the Youtube explanation for crass political purposes as the cause of the attack was arguable scandalous. Most everything else was certainly worthy of strong criticism, but said criticism was well-shy of suggesting criminality.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#123

A warning is not the same as 'actionable intelligence'.

After doing a Google search I discovered that the term has a variety of meanings depending on industry, government, etc. So my criticism of your broke (sic) Google turns out to be unfair on my part, as it pertains to that term.

Kudos to Snoof-dog for seeking MY definition for that term.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did the panel figure out where Obama was and what he was doing while the ambassador died?

He was puffing Kools on the Truman Balcony practicing his pop-lock moves.

#126 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-08-05 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

He may have been tossing back a couple of 40's and practicing some putting on the West Wing carpet as well, Lee.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you have evidence of 'actionable intel' prior to 9/11 that was ignored, please provide it.

Posted by JeffJ

Tenet's visit to the WH and the CIA officer's visit to Crawford warning of imminent attacks using airplanes.

Airport security wasn't ordered to be enhanced nor rules changed forbidding items that could be used as weapons ... like boxcutters.

Oh, and GO TIGERS!!! :-)

#128 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did the panel figure out where Obama was and what he was doing while the ambassador died?

To the best of my knowledge, no.

It's a fair question. Having said that, in the absence of a stand-down order AND in conjunction with sworn testimony that he gave a direct order to do whatever necessary to help....

That he was apparently so disinterested and disengaged is a pretty bad indictment on its face. Having said that, I saw a blurb a couple of weeks ago on this subject - Top military brass apparently testified very openly and honestly that all avenues for assistance were pondered and a stand-down order was not given from above. Perhaps the military should shoulder a bit of blame for not trying harder, but if the summarization of the testimonies that I read is accurate, any attempts to take action were not hampered by the WH or State Department.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where exactly was Obama when our embassy was being attacked by terrorist? 2 years and he still will not say.

This president failed to adequately protect those who serve in dangerous foreign countries by not supplying enough security personnel. Their deaths and blood are on his hands.

Basically Obama is a lazy president unconcerned with the job he was hired to do.

#130 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-08-05 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

JEFF

Have you forgotten our embassies in Egypt and Yemen and 8 other locations were under siege at the very same time the attack in Benghazi happened? Why wouldn't our intelligence services first thought, with very little information coming out of Benghazi because of the attack and fires, be that the Benghazi attack was also related to the video?

I'd bet the Situation Room was very busy.

Refresher: www.nbcnews.com

#131 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Airport security wasn't ordered to be enhanced nor rules changed forbidding items that could be used as weapons ... like boxcutters.

OK.

If you want to argue that more aggressive steps should have been taken, in hindsight, fine.

The same could be said for Benghazi.

The difference being, it's exponentially easier to step up measures in order to defend a small consulate in a foreign country than it is to implement drastic changes to the entire TSA structure in a matter of a few months, as a reaction to a PBD that was released (and that only met one of the 3 criteria for 'actionable intelligence') a few months before a successful attack.

Had the terrorist been competent, the Underwear Bomber would have been Obama's mini-9/11. Had that plot been successful it wouldn't have been the fault of Obama and the rest of our security apparatus. Do you blame the Boston Marathon bombing on Obama? I don't. Do you blame the Fort Hood shooting on Obama? I don't.

#132 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you forgotten our embassies in Egypt and Yemen and 8 other locations were under siege at the very same time the attack in Benghazi happened? Why wouldn't our intelligence services first thought, with very little information coming out of Benghazi because of the attack and fires, be that the Benghazi attack was also related to the video?
I'd bet the Situation Room was very busy.

No doubt.

The Benghazi attack was planned long before knowledge of the video was even in existence.

It wasn't a 'spontaneous reaction' to an internet video. Some reports suggest that learning about the video may have increased the intensity of the attack and possibly attracted a few straggler soldiers en route. The fact of the matter is, this attack would have happened regardless of the existence of this video.

What was disgusting was that the administration took what was by far the weakest motivation for the attack and acted as if it was the sole reason for the attack.

#133 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Benghazi attack was planned long before knowledge of the video was even in existence.

We know that now, but at the time multiple other embassies were under siege, so the logical first conclusion would be it was a related event.

#134 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

On a lighter note: David Price!!!

#135 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

He'll make up for Verlander being washed up.

#136 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-08-05 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

We know that now, but at the time multiple other embassies were under siege, so the logical first conclusion would be it was a related event.

#134 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

No.

Susan Rice promulgated the talking points 5 days after the event took place.

At that point the differences were WAY more stark than the similarities - the degree of military-style coordination, the amount and caliber of munitions employed, etc.

The Ben Rhodes email pretty much tells it all. This was a politically-damaging event that took place in the heat of election season. That they politicized it for short-term gain is not unique. That they are now starting to pay a price as a result of public reaction to their follies is what will continue to hamper the second term of this administration.

#137 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

He'll make up for Verlander being washed up.

#136 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

Here's hoping!

#138 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

This president failed to adequately protect those who serve in dangerous foreign countries by not supplying enough security personnel. Their deaths and blood are on his hands.

The GOP slashed $400,000,000 for embassy security in 2011 and 2012 from the budget despite the pleas of the WH and State Department not to.

Hundreds of millions of dollars that would have resulted in far more more security in hotspots like Libya, which lost $1.4 million in security funding the year of the attack.

#139 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lee,

As you likely know, when the playoffs start there is enough gap between games that the starting rotation goes from 5 to 4. So, with Smyly being dealt, which starter does Detroit move to the pen - Verlander or Porcello?

The general sense is Porcello but given how this season has gone for him I Think that is insane.

#140 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Susan Rice promulgated the talking points 5 days after the event took place. 5 days later our intelligence services still didn't know what we know now. Blaming Rice for repeating what our own intelligence services were telling the WH is hardly a reason to blame her for anything.

Talking points prepared by the CIA, stated "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

The video was the reason for the siege on our Cairo embassy.

Issa's committee cleared the WH of wrongdoing. End of story.

#141 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you blame the Boston Marathon bombing on Obama? I don't. Do you blame the Fort Hood shooting on Obama? I don't.
#132 | Posted by JeffJ

I don't blame 9/11 on Bush, I blame it on the people who carried it out.

If I had to guess, I'd say he didn't consider the possibility that the PNAC signatories that filled key leadership positions in his administration were willing to let a terror attack happen to further the PNAC agenda. And, I think once it did happen, his highest-ever Presidential approval ratings sort of convinced him maybe they had a point.

By his second term, though, I think he had figured out he was President Patsy. When your administration is too right-wing for John Ashcroft, that's a clue.

What was disgusting was that the administration took what was by far the weakest motivation for the attack and acted as if it was the sole reason for the attack.
#133 | Posted by JeffJ

"They Hate Us For Our Freedumbs!" -- GWB explains 9/11

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-05 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The one thing you can say about the right is that when a horse dies they don't let it die, that dead horse has to keep working but at some point I will threaten to call the ASPCA Jeff, quit beating that dead horse.

#143 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-05 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

What was disgusting was that the administration took what was by far the weakest motivation for the attack and acted as if it was the sole reason for the attack.
#133 | Posted by JeffJ

The Obama administration, like any administration, relies on our intelligence community to inform them when situations like this happen. With 10 other embassies also under attack because of the video, the CIA drew what most rational people would conclude.

"More than two weeks after militants killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans at a diplomatic mission in Libya, FBI investigators have not gone into the city where the attack took place due to security concerns, a federal law enforcement official said today ... "

abcnews.go.com

4 1/2 days after the attack, Rice goes on TV and repeats the CIA's preliminary briefing points, which, again, would be the logical conclusion. It's a shame the GOP played petty partisan politics with this, especially after slashing embassy security budgets by hundreds of billions of dollars.

#144 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#142

You and I are much closer on this issue than you realize.

The one thing you can say about the right is that when a horse dies they don't let it die, that dead horse has to keep working but at some point I will threaten to call the ASPCA Jeff, quit beating that dead horse.

#143 | POSTED BY DANNI

What 'dead horse' are you referring to. I accept the conclusions of this investigation.

#145 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

4 1/2 days after the attack, Rice goes on TV and repeats the CIA's preliminary briefing points, which, again, would be the logical conclusion. It's a shame the GOP played petty partisan politics with this, especially after slashing embassy security budgets by hundreds of billions of dollars.
#144 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

That's absurd.

Benghazi differed from the other 'protests' in so many different ways that it's ridiculous to attempt to draw equivalence.

Benghazi was planned WAY before the Youtube thing was known about.

The attack was well-coordinated and employed a degree of munitions and tactics that obliterated any notion of a 'spontaneous uprising'. To try and tie what was happening to a MUCH smaller degree elsewhere with what happened at Benghazi was and is absurd.

#146 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What 'dead horse' are you referring to. I accept the conclusions of this investigation."

No, Jeff you seem incapable of accepting the death of this horse as post #146 demonstrates. Benghazi, as a talking point that harms the Obama adminstration, is dead. You will keep beating the poor carcass but it will be more and more obvious to everyone that you are, in fact, beating a very dead horse. Cheer up Jeff, you can still use the ridiculous IRS non-scandal to try and make partisan points that have nothing to do with the real issues of the day.

#147 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-05 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Benghazi differed from the other 'protests' in so many different ways that it's ridiculous to attempt to draw equivalence.

Benghazi was planned WAY before the Youtube thing was known about.

#146 | Posted by JeffJ

Again (sigh), we know that now.

A 'much smaller degree'? They were storming the walls of and setting fires to U.S. embassies in 10 other countries at the same time. This wasn't the embassy in Libya, it was a consulate in an outpost in Libya, not a large city like Tripoli. It isn't as though there were FBI legats and CIA operatives in Benghazi that night.

I'm not going to argue this point any more. Not after the GOP committee, eager to find wrongdoing, exonerated the WH.

#148 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

JEFF

You're in the midst of the "5 Stages of Grief" over the GOP not finding wrongdoing on the part of the WH. I know you're having a hard time. A hard time coming to grips with the fact the GOP, eager to find something, anything to pin on the WH, didn't.

Here's wishing you much success reaching Stage 5: Acceptance. LOL

#149 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think we should all have a moment of silence to recognize the sadness that the end to the Banghazi debacle is creating among some of our fellow posters. This scandal was supposed to be major, perhaps decisive in the next Presidential election and now, for it all to turn into crap, -----, garbage, after many of us told you it would it must be depressing. Exercise can help you deal with depression.

#150 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-05 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

MCMLCXX:
your statement above is laughable both on the surface and under even a small analysis. What did you expect Obama to do, fly over there in his superman suit? There were only a couple of hours to play with....I mean really, get a grip on your hatred.

#151 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-08-05 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only argument any of you Obama clowns have is a strawman of what I've said on this thread and in the past regarding this subject.

Get back to me when we can discuss this issue without first assigning a position that wasn't taken.

#152 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again (sigh), we know that now.

It was known almost immediately - certainly well before Susan Rice spewed her garbage.

The coordination, training and caliber of munitions that were all part of the attack made in quite clear that it wasn't some stupid, intifada-like protest where some disgruntled malcontents were chucking some rocks out of protest.

#153 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-05 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was known almost immediately - certainly well before Susan Rice spewed her garbage.

From the House committee report:

-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."

Continuing to beat a dead horse is only smelling up the room.

#154 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-05 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

#154

The Bed Rhodes email contradicts that garbage.

Giving absolute best benefit of the doubt, they were dealing with conflicting intel and ran with the narrative that was the most politically expedient for the moment and pretended as if all other contrary intel simply didn't exist.

If Rice had said - this attack was coordinated and packed huge fire power which suggests considerable planning. However, elsewhere we saw some riots that were centered around a spontaneous protest relating to an abhorrent Youtube video that was grossly insulting to Islam so we aren't 100% certain of the exact nature of this attack - it would have negated a fair amount of political controversy surrounding this attack.

But that's not the approach they chose. And here you are defending everything they said, verbatim, tooth and nail. That's how you are coming across.

#155 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-06 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bed = Ben

#156 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-06 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

What the hell difference does any of what you keep talking about make, Jeff? There wasn't a specific threat about Benghazi someone in the WH or State Dept. didn't act on. The GOP controlled committee didn't reach the conclusions you're rattling on about surround who knew what and when they knew it.

The worst that can be said about the whole Benghazi incident that has any bearing on potentially making a difference in the outcome that night are the hundreds of millions of dollars the House cut from the Obama WH and State Dept requests for diplomatic security funding. Specifically, in this instance, the inability to hire dozens more security personnel with the $1.4 million cut from Libyan diplomatic security that year thanks to the GOP cuts. Not that an extra few dozen guards would have been able to hold off a mob with grenade launchers, but we'll never know, will we?

#157 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-06 12:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only argument any of you Obama clowns have is a strawman of what I've said on this thread and in the past regarding this subject

No. What you continue to assert doesn't match the conclusions of the GOP controlled House Intelligence Committee after months and months of investigation and testimony.

#158 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-06 01:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

.. but we'll never know, will we?

POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

WHAT difference does it make now?

-Hillary Boo Boo

#159 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-06 03:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

#8 (#5) "Where are the usual suspects to do what JeffJ just did?"
("If this is the conclusion of a 2-year investigation, so be it.")

#19 ~ "...entire involvement in Libya was foolhardy from the start. And Stevens being stationed in such an environment was still stupid."

EXACTLY! what the ef does it matter, anyway? So glad to know the reason was not malicious, just incompetence, the EXACT same reason 9/11 occurred.

#160 | Posted by kenx at 2014-08-06 03:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

This scandal was supposed to be major, perhaps decisive in the next Presidential election and now, for it all to turn into crap, -----, garbage, after many of us told you it would it must be depressing. Exercise can help you deal with depression.

#150 | Posted by danni

Don't worry about it. There's plenty more on the Epic Failures list to pick from. But I'm sure this will help his 40% approval rating with the folks.

#161 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-08-06 07:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

It was known almost immediately - certainly well before Susan Rice spewed her garbage.

JEFF -

That's not what Issa's committee's report concluded. I still don't understand how any of this gets put on Rice. She was the middle man. If there was any collusion involved regarding this "political talking point," it would have come directly from the President. Issa's report indicates otherwise - that it came from the CIA and was considered, at the time, a legitimate explanation of the events on the ground.

CIA determines, after time, otherwise yet Rice still gets pummeled for doing her job? I just don't get it.

#162 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-06 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

JEFFJ -

Ben Rhodes email is hardly any smoking gun. If it was, it would have been used by Issa and his committee's report. Please consider the following, regardless of the source (Media Matters):

In his twenty paragraph email advising Rice on her upcoming TV appearances, Rhodes made only two direct references to Benghazi -- first highlighting support from the Libyan government for U.S. diplomatic efforts in the country, and later debunking the false claim that there was any "actionable intelligence" prior to the attack on the facility in Benghazi and stating that "the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." That language is identical to the initial draft of the separate set of CIA talking points that were crafted by CIA analysts earlier that day, suggesting that Rhodes had seen that early document and was using it to ensure the administration's statements were consistent with the intelligence community's conclusions.

A bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report released in January 2014 stated that "[s]ome intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video." Indeed, former CIA acting director Mike Morrell has testified that the CIA chief of station in Libya believed at the time that the video might have motivated the attackers. The Senate report also determined that "there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes" -- a reality that Fox has refused to accept.

UPDATE: A report (PDF) from the Congressional Research Service published days after the attacks in Benghazi details how "Muslims in a number of countries have responded in recent days with anger at the United States that many observers describe as a response to a privately produced film circulating on the Internet that denigrates Islam and the prophet Mohammed." According to the report, as of September 14, 2012, when Rhodes' email was sent, such protests - often violent and focused on U.S. diplomatic facilities -- had occurred in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Yemen, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, and Malaysia.

mediamatters.org

There's no way to prove or disprove the intentions of the WH when dealing with this matter immediately after it happened. Did they selectively present the narrative with political purposes in mind? Possibly. No way to know. But that's HARDLY an equitable offense that the GOP (and Issa especially) were portraying to the country prior to the release of this report.

B. Hussein Obama was unjustly smeared with this story, and continues to be so by the likes of MCM. Obama has screwed up a lot, but this Benghazi situation was supposed to be his Waterloo according to the GOP. It has turned out to be anything but, and yet the Right continues their attempt at smearing (albeit without as much ammunition which is probably why you don't see PANEO or BOAZ or AFK on this thread). Shows you which party is truly interested in scoring political points, doesn't it?

The death of an ambassador no longer matters unless it was Obama's fault. That's how the Right is presenting their argument post report release.

#163 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-06 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Beach,

I'll look at it later (don't want you to think I am dodging you).

I've got a ton of work to do right now.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-06 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've got a ton of work to do right now.
#164 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

From where I'm sitting, as a recent Master's graduate who is underemployed, that can only be a good thing!

#165 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-06 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort