US House approves new Benghazi inquiry

[Chicog]

I really don't think anyone is going to win an argument comparing Obama's record as CiC against Bush's.

All Bush has did was get the US into two hugely expensive and unnecessary wars that have not only served no purpose other than to destabilise the region and make him and his paymasters a shedload of money, and killed thousands of US servicemen to boot.

Anyone who thinks this latest Benghazi "inquiry" is anything more than a kangaroo court putting on a show trial is frankly deluded.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Anyone who thinks this latest Benghazi "inquiry" is anything more than a kangaroo court putting on a show trial is frankly deluded.

I would say the same thing about anyone who thinks that Obama and Hillary did not lie repeatedly about a YouTube video being the cause of a "spontaneous demonstration" for political expediency and then got the man who made it arrested and put in prison.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

They were basically relying on CIA briefings that used bad OSINT. Someone should get their ar*e kicked for that but it does not merit an hysterical Republican witch hunt. I think the voters will see it for what it is anyway. If anything it's driving voters away from GOP candidates towards Hillary.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

I think the voters will see it for what it is anyway.

Don't count on it. Sixty percent of American voters want lawmakers to keep investigating what happened in Benghazi.

[Chicog]

Fox News poll was it?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Chicog]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Chicog]

Oh lord...

"One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess."

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

I've never met anyone who thinks that Benghazi is the "biggest political scandal in American history", so that does not mean much. I can't believe that they actually claimed that on your link.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[GinBoy2]

This is almost the US version of lese majeste...totally meaningless, but politically expedient. To the average American in the heartlands I'd be surprised if they could locate Libya, yet alone Benghazi on a map. They 'know' its a scandal and need to be outraged because Faux News tells them it is. Then again, Faux News also told them that Iraq was bristling with WMD and that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to 9-11...now how did that turn out again?

[Chicog]

I've never met anyone who thinks that Benghazi is the "biggest political scandal in American history", so that does not mean much. I can't believe that they actually claimed that on your link.

At least I provided one which is more than you did....

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Rimmer]

One post sprinkled with profanities and flames removed also one post with thoroughly messed up quotes

[chuckd]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

This isn't Fox News poll but it is something far worse.

It's a poll for hire. Their motto might well be...Tell us what you want to prove and let us prove it for you.

On their "About Us": page we find this little blurb:

HIRE PPP

If you are interested in hiring

Public Policy Polling or would

like a price quote, please

contact us by email or by calling

888-621-6988.

[folium]

Since Obama is the Commander in Chief of all US military assets, it would seem prudent for him to have been in attendance, just in case some out of the ordinary attack on a consulate was taking place.

There have been seven US Ambassadors killed in the line of duty with Ambassador Stevens being the last. The prior Ambassador killed in the line of duty was the US Ambassador to Afghanistan in 1979...under the Carter administration I might add.

Dereliction of Duty by the CIC would seem to be a very viable issue in the Benghazi case.

Bit of a silly game to play....

Actually the last US ambassador to have been murdered was Arnold Raphel in Pakistan in August 1988, blown out of the sky with Zia ul-Haq in very mysterious circumstances with many potential culprits. The US president at the time, Mr Reagan.

Actually the Republicans score 4-3 on murdered ambassadors, Nixon (Khartoum 1973), Ford (Nicosia 1974 & Beirut 1976), Reagan (Islamabad 1988); Johnson (Guatemala City 1968), Carter (Kabul 1979) & Obama (Tripoli 2013).

We have had 2 ambassadors murdered by the IRA in 1976 & 1979, but I don't blame PM Callaghan for their deaths. Shiite happens and people die if they are stupid or plain unlucky. Playing the hindsight game does not bring people back to life.

Edited May 9, 2014 by folium

[Ulysses G.]

We have had 2 ambassadors murdered by the IRA in 1976 & 1979, but I don't blame PM Callaghan for their deaths. Shiite happens and people die if they are stupid or plain unlucky. Playing the hindsight game does not bring people back to life.

I agree with you on that. My main complaint is about Obama and Hillary lying repeatedly about a YouTube video being the cause of a "spontaneous demonstration" in order to win an election and then getting the man who made it arrested and put in prison, but the cover up afterwards is the real crime.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

They were basically relying on CIA briefings that used bad OSINT. Someone should get their ar*e kicked for that but it does not merit an hysterical Republican witch hunt. I think the voters will see it for what it is anyway. If anything it's driving voters away from GOP candidates towards Hillary.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And, on what do you base your opinion that it is driving voters toward Hillary?

You might want to become familiar with recent events.

There is a conservative organization named Judicial Watch who's sole purpose is to try and get some modicum of transparency in the political process. They recently received a number of un-redacted e-mails and correspondence from the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOAI) request. They had receiveived many of these e-mails in redacted form some months prior but took them to court and secured a Federal Court's order for the State Department to release un-redacted versions.

One of the e-mails was from a Mr. Ben Rhodes, White House Deputy Strategic Communications Advisor, and was sent to Susan Rice and others in the inner circle of this Administration and was suggesting talking points for Ms. Rice's upcoming Sunday talk-a-thon with the news shows.

This memo contained "goals" as follows:

...To convey that the United States is doing everything :that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad

...To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.

...To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests.

...To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

There is much more and it can be read here. It is a PDF file with this memo beginning on page 14.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf

You might find the press release from Judicial Watch interesting and educational since it will walk you through the history of their attempts to get some transparency on this situation.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/

What this proves is the White House and it's very senior people were involved with the deflection of the attack from an Al-Qaeda planned attack into something spontaneous based on this internet video. You might recall this took place less than two months prior to Obama's reelection and, since his claim was Al Qaeda was on the run and Osama had been killed, an attack by an organization "on the run" might not have been favorable news for his campaign. The White House further claimed they had only changed one word in the CIA's original talking points. That has already been proven to be false.

By the way, the author of this e-mail, Mr. Rhodes, is also the brother of the President of CBS News, David Rhodes. It is unlikely you will see any of this on CBS.

PS: Another interesting article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/05/01/the-worst-excuse-ever-the-rhodes-memo-debacle/

[Chicog]

There is no crime. This latest investigation is completely pointless.

[Chicog]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

This isn't Fox News poll but it is something far worse.

It's a poll for hire. Their motto might well be...Tell us what you want to prove and let us prove it for you.

On their "About Us": page we find this little blurb:

HIRE PPP

If you are interested in hiring

Public Policy Polling or would

like a price quote, please

contact us by email or by calling

888-621-6988.

How do you think Poll companies make money Chuck? Has it honestly never occurred to you?

[Ulysses G.]

How do you think Poll companies make money Chuck? Has it honestly never occurred to you?

In this case, it looks like, by distorting the truth. Highlighting a premise surrounding voters that think "that Benghazi is the "biggest political scandal in American history", is absolutely absurd. I wonder if there is anyone who actually thinks that.

[Ulysses G.]

The White House further claimed they had only changed one word in the CIA's original talking points. That has already been proven to be false.

Indeed. This is exactly the kind of thing that they are hoping will remain buried and the reason why they keep trying to crush the legitimacy of a select committee that will have broader powers to get around the COVER UP. More and more of this kind of purposeful obfuscating is bound to come out.

[chuckd]

What I fail to understand is why elected officials and some posters on this forum would not be anxious to get to the bottom of what happened.

It would seem only those afraid of the truth are those trying to keep the truth from coming out.

[rotary]

Yeah, it's all about Hillary. It won't work.

Nothing is about Hillary except bad dreams

She only needs to win the electoral college by one vote. She doesn't need you.

That's puts us even as I have no use for her anyway

[Pinot]

I think the voters will see it for what it is anyway.

Don't count on it. Sixty percent of American voters want lawmakers to keep investigating what happened in Benghazi.

Where did you get that ridiculous stat? Let me guess...Fox? Would that be the same sixty percent of the American voters who wanted to stop Obamacare? Of course it is. They make this stuff up and you buy it. You're drinking the Fox Koolaid.

The American voters have had it with Benghazi. There is nothing there. Find something else to whine about and raise money. Put a fork in Benghazi, it's done.

[Chicog]

How do you think Poll companies make money Chuck? Has it honestly never occurred to you?

In this case, it looks like, by distorting the truth. Highlighting a premise surrounding voters that think "that Benghazi is the "biggest political scandal in American history", is absolutely absurd. I wonder if there is anyone who actually thinks that.

I would imagine there are more than a few Fox News voters that think that because I've seen Fox's talking heads trying to drum such rubbish into them, and we know that many of them aren't exactly bright.

Which is why the point of that statement is so believable.

If you are dumb enough to swallow that, the chances are that you are too dumb to know where Benghazi is, no?

[Jingthing]

What I fail to understand is why elected officials and some posters on this forum would not be anxious to get to the bottom of what happened.

It would seem only those afraid of the truth are those trying to keep the truth from coming out.

Much more interested in a LOT of other things.

Such as what is going to happen to the millions of working age Americans who have been out of work for over a year and employer's generally screen out resumes with six month gaps.

So there chances of recovery are tiny even with a big economic recovery ... which of course hasn't happened.

A huge percentage of them are going to be dead directly from this.

And Fox News obsesses over a FEW deaths purely for political propaganda.

That is DISGUSTING.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[lomatopo]

PS: As Commander in Chief, the President is the ranking member of the US military forces.

You seem to be confused on this matter, the President is not a member of the U.S. Military, and is not subject to the UCMJ which defines the criminal codes re: "Dereliction of Duty".

Still not getting why the far right has their panties in a bunch over Benghazi, or what they hope to accomplish?

Politicizing events, and the response to those events, is a broadly acceptable form of governance in the U.S.

What's next? Re-opening a Whitewater investigation? An investigation to Vince Foster's death? An investigation itno the White House travel office "scandal"?

A guide to GOP's Benghazi obsession

By Sally Kohn

May 6, 2014 -- Updated 1631 GMT (0031 HKT)

What exactly are the Republican accusations regarding Benghazi?

The main Republican critique appears to be that the White House and State Department politicized talking points given to U.N Ambassador Susan Rice, who spoke about the attacks on American TV five days later. Republicans argue the White House deliberately downplayed the involvement of al Qaeda and played up the spontaneous nature of the protests as a reaction to an anti-Islam video, to avoid tarnishing President Obama's national security record in advance of the 2012 presidential election. This, despite the fact that the White House talking points matched those produced by the CIA.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/06/opinion/kohn-benghazi-gop/

Why Republicans Are So Obsessed With The Benghazi Attacks

The September 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya were back in the spotlight Wednesday with another House committee hearing on whether the Obama administration mishandled the tragic incident.

In the eight months since Benghazi, the debate about what happened in Benghazi has become deeply political, as Republicans continue to challenge the White House's actions during and after the attacks, which left four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, dead.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-republicans-obsessed-with-benghazi-2013-5

[Chicog]

The actual title of this should be "House Republicans approve NINTH Benghazi Inquiry".

And remember they tried to repeal the ACA FIFTY times before they realised just how foolish their behaviour was.

Since the attack 20 months ago, eight congressional committees have conducted inquiries into Benghazi. There have been 13 hearings and 50 briefings for members of Congress.

They are not going to find anything new, this is purely political grandstanding.

As I said earlier, it's a Kangaroo Court conducting a Show Trial, and they'll start releasing unsubstantiated innuendo more and more as the mid-terms near. They are so utterly predictable.

They are not even interested in a fair and democratic investigation. You only have to look at Daryl Issa's shameful attempts at cutting off a fellow congressman to see that.

[Chicog]

And let's not forget that the GOP's usual finding so far almost always point to State Department failings in providing security.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

[chuckd]

PS: As Commander in Chief, the President is the ranking member of the US military forces.

You seem to be confused on this matter, the President is not a member of the U.S. Military, and is not subject to the UCMJ which defines the criminal codes re: "Dereliction of Duty".

Still not getting why the far right has their panties in a bunch over Benghazi, or what they hope to accomplish?

Politicizing events, and the response to those events, is a broadly acceptable form of governance in the U.S.

What's next? Re-opening a Whitewater investigation? An investigation to Vince Foster's death? An investigation itno the White House travel office "scandal"?

A guide to GOP's Benghazi obsession

By Sally Kohn

May 6, 2014 -- Updated 1631 GMT (0031 HKT)

What exactly are the Republican accusations regarding Benghazi?

The main Republican critique appears to be that the White House and State Department politicized talking points given to U.N Ambassador Susan Rice, who spoke about the attacks on American TV five days later. Republicans argue the White House deliberately downplayed the involvement of al Qaeda and played up the spontaneous nature of the protests as a reaction to an anti-Islam video, to avoid tarnishing President Obama's national security record in advance of the 2012 presidential election. This, despite the fact that the White House talking points matched those produced by the CIA.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/06/opinion/kohn-benghazi-gop/

Why Republicans Are So Obsessed With The Benghazi Attacks

The September 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya were back in the spotlight Wednesday with another House committee hearing on whether the Obama administration mishandled the tragic incident.

In the eight months since Benghazi, the debate about what happened in Benghazi has become deeply political, as Republicans continue to challenge the White House's actions during and after the attacks, which left four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, dead.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-republicans-obsessed-with-benghazi-2013-5

First, you are absolutely correct. The office of the Presidency is considered a civilian position as opposed to being a member of the military. As such, the sitting President is not subject to the UCMJ. The current WH occupant isn't even subject to the Constitution so I must have lost my mind to think otherwise. I stand corrected.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, you then posted a video of a comedian/political pundit that would seem more appropriate for "Mad Magazine" than a semi-serious discussion forum. I hope you aren't one of these anti-Fox News cultists that gets their news from Jon Stewart or MSNBC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, your next contribution was an opinion piece by one Sally Krohn, whose career is summed up on Wikipedia as follows:

"Sally Kohn is a liberal political commentator, community organizer, and founder and chief education officer of the Movement Vision Lab, a grassroots think tank. Kohn was a contributor for the Fox News Channel.[1][2] Her writing is published in publications like The Washington Post and USA Today.[3]"

Fair and balanced she ain't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly, your article written by Grace Wyler for the Business Insider seems somewhat accurate although she seems to place a little too much emphasis on the Hillary factor. Hillary needs to take her lumps for the inaction which occured under her watch...from the pre-attack lack of security to the post-attack changing of the talking points.

I would think many people would like to know why the UN Ambassador made all those guest appearances when the person in charge, Clinton, did not seem available for whatever reason. I would also like to know what input she had with Pannetta and Adm. Dempsey as it concerns the eight hours they were under attack and received no help.

In closing I find it inexcusable that not one single individual has been fired from the executive branch for the massive mistakes made before the attack and the lies that were dispensed after the attack.

But that's just me

[chuckd]

The actual title of this should be "House Republicans approve NINTH Benghazi Inquiry".

And remember they tried to repeal the ACA FIFTY times before they realised just how foolish their behaviour was.

Since the attack 20 months ago, eight congressional committees have conducted inquiries into Benghazi. There have been 13 hearings and 50 briefings for members of Congress.

They are not going to find anything new, this is purely political grandstanding.

As I said earlier, it's a Kangaroo Court conducting a Show Trial, and they'll start releasing unsubstantiated innuendo more and more as the mid-terms near. They are so utterly predictable.

They are not even interested in a fair and democratic investigation. You only have to look at Daryl Issa's shameful attempts at cutting off a fellow congressman to see that.

You seem to have forgotten your link so here it is:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6bc10224-d6cd-11e3-b95e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31Ik9L3FZ

PS: You also must have missed this part of your quoted article:

"To be fair, the White House has brought some of the grief on itself. The latest outrage has been sparked by an email on Benghazi from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, which was obtained by a conservative group through a freedom of information request. By withholding this email from previous disclosures, the administration has given critics a reason to allege a cover-up. “A line was crossed,” Mr Boehner said on Wednesday, using the email to justify the latest inquiry."

[Ulysses G.]

How do you think Poll companies make money Chuck? Has it honestly never occurred to you?

In this case, it looks like, by distorting the truth. Highlighting a premise surrounding voters that think "that Benghazi is the "biggest political scandal in American history", is absolutely absurd. I wonder if there is anyone who actually thinks that.

I would imagine there are more than a few Fox News voters that think that because I've seen Fox's talking heads trying to drum such rubbish into them, and we know that many of them aren't exactly bright.

Actually you haven't. No one on Fox has even come close to suggesting such a thing. On this occasion, it is not Fox viewers who are not "exactly bright."

Edited May 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.