Discussion of Benghazi hearings

[Craig234]

This is a thread for anyone who wants to discuss and share information about the Benghazin hearings in Congress that just started.

A few first impressions:

The is some good investigation to be done. I'm not sure how much more past the commission that's aready made recommendations that were accepted.

It seems there weren't a lot of good reactionary options. Military who could help would get there too late.

That leaves the planning and preparatation, which looks inadequate.

Several state department people have reported been fired/disciplined.

While there's good investigation to be done, it seems Republicans are being about as partisan as possible about this, caring far more about looking for ammo to attack with.

Democrats requested a number of people be invited to testify, such as military officials who could explain why forces couldn't be sent; Republicans refused.

Mike Huckabee was quoted saying Obama won't finish his second term over this. Guess they've found their new Monica to try to use.

I suspect interesting details will come out of the hearings.

While there has been transparency on things, I don't think Democrats are immune on this to how it affected Obama in 2012 or will affect Hillary in 2016.

Those politics seem to get more attention than the non-political issues.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I find all this faux outrage disgusting. The only thing Republicans see is conspiracy, and they are going to twist whatever comes out of this to fit their conspiracy. Thousands of troops have died in Iraq on a war based on lies with nary a bit of outrage from Republicans, yet look at all they can muster for Benghazi.

 

[cwjerome]

I find all this faux outrage disgusting. The only thing Republicans see is conspiracy, and they are going to twist whatever comes out of this to fit their conspiracy. Thousands of troops have died in Iraq on a war based on lies with nary a bit of outrage from Republicans, yet look at all they can muster for Benghazi.

Hahahahh! Talking about conspiracies and twisting information, and then saying this.... how precious :biggrin: You're all the same.

Obviously there was some improper planning and maybe some poor decisions, but I have no reason to suspect there was anything approaching scandalous shenanigans, although I'm sure the Reps will dig hard for anything remotely negative to use politically.

 

[Craig234]

One small point:

Every state department cable of a certain type, including one that denied more forces for the embassy, has the Secretary of State's name on it.

But does not mean the Secretary had anything to do with the cable - it's just a rule.

The commission that investigated found that a cable with that order had never been seen by Hillary - it had been handled by a deputy secretary.

But the Republicans' congressional web page reportedly has a claim that the telegram cancelling troops has Hillary Clinton's signature.

So it's technically accurate, but a lie as misleading - they are implying she made the order, knowing full well she did not.

Last I heard tonight, it's still posted.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Hahahahh! Talking about conspiracies and twisting information, and then saying this.... how precious :biggrin: You're all the same.

Obviously there was some improper planning and maybe some poor decisions, but I have no reason to suspect there was anything approaching scandalous shenanigans, although I'm sure the Reps will dig hard for anything remotely negative to use politically.

OK, so lets compare the two...

1. Benghazi: An unfortunate situation that upon investigation might reveal in hindsight a number of mistakes that were made in security planning. However, lets be practical. We were maintaining a diplomatic presence in a very unstable country, which has inherent risks. You can only do so much to mitigate those risks via security precautions before you completely undermine the entire point of the diplomatic mission.

2. Iraq: While the "investigation" into Iraq's supposed WMD programs was underway, a full scale war mobilization was already taking place. Dick Cheney leads his own intelligence arm in the Pentagon to cherry pick information to help the administration build a case to support a decision that we all know had already been made as soon as Bush tired of Afghanistan. The invasion begins, every nook and cranny of the nation is searched with no nuclear or chemical weapons found, and the original justification for the war is simply swept under the rug and turned into a mission of spreading freedom and democracy through the middle east. Thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are dead as a result.

Now you tell me, which situation is riddled with more willful and deliberate improprieties? How can anyone justify the Republican outrage over #1 above over the deaths of 5 US diplomatic personnel, and their utter silence over #2 above that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and trillions in treasury? The simple fact is you cant. I am not twisting the information. I am making a point to undermine the sincerity of Republican outrage over Benghazi. It's all political theater, nothing more.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

These investigations are 0.1% legitimate concern on the part of Republicans and 99.9% political hysterics aimed at weakening Obama and/or Clinton. Of course they had no effect on the election and will have no effect on 2016 either, but that won't stop the drooling and howling.

If it's worth spending months digging into every nook and cranny of why Benghazi happened, then it's worth spending years digging into why 9/11 happened. Where were those investigations, with Bush and his cronies being called out on the carpet? Oh right -- nobody was allowed to do that because it would have been "unpatriotic".

 

[Mxylplyx]

These investigations are 0.1% legitimate concern on the part of Republicans and 99.9% political hysterics aimed at weakening Obama and/or Clinton. Of course they had no effect on the election and will have no effect on 2016 either, but that won't stop the drooling and howling.

If it's worth spending months digging into every nook and cranny of why Benghazi happened, then it's worth spending years digging into why 9/11 happened. Where were those investigations, with Bush and his cronies being called out on the carpet? Oh right -- nobody was allowed to do that because it would have been "unpatriotic".

Under Bush Benghazi would have simply been chalked up as a terrorist attack by evil doers who wake up every day hating America because of our freedom. It would simply further the case for another war or engagement in the endless war on terror, and if you didn't support whatever response he came up with, likely involving 5,000lb bombs or cruise missiles, well then you don't support the troops.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The political theater in this is the only motivation it seems. In the previous administration there were numerous attacks on Embassies, many people killed and yet no hearings at all and certainly not the hysteria that exists for this.

 

[Harabec]

Sometimes from reading this forum I get the impression that US politicians aren't interested in anything resembling actual governance, just their seats and their "team", whatever that may be.

I mean, I see it in Israel too and I guess it is a part of the system but what I read on AT is just way above anything else here.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Sometimes from reading this forum I get the impression that US politicians aren't interested in anything resembling actual governance, just their seats and their "team", whatever that may be.

I mean, I see it in Israel too and I guess it is a part of the system but what I read on AT is just way above anything else here.

You are right. It is quite sad. They almost seem to think that the nation will just take care of itself while they go about trying to score the next political point against their opponents. From my recollection it all started with the Clinton impeachment.

 

[Moonbeam]

The topic is Benghazi, not the Iraq war, but I can't help but feel that a point on Iraq is relevant to the discussion here because Benghazi looks for all the world to me to be nothing but a reaction by Republicans to political importance, political irrelevance, and a repressed contempt for reality because they can't face it. If Democrats had done what these mentally ill individuals had done to Bush, we would have heard nothing but charges of treason. Joe McCarthy is alive and well in the Republican party. We have within us a cancer in the form of a mental disease and I think it's destroying the nation. I see nothing but a race to either wake up and or watch the country rot from within. To be or to be endlessly kicked in the teeth by folk gone round the bend.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It seems that the thread was started regarding Benghazi and the inquiries of the Obama administration handling of such.

Within the original thread title nor in the OP is any mention of Iraq or Bush.

Please keep on topic

EK
Admin

 

[lotus503]

It seems that the thread was started regarding Benghazi and the inquiries of the Obama administration handling of such.

Within the original thread title nor in the OP is any mention of Iraq or Bush.

Please keep on topic

EK
Admin

I'd argue to a limited degree its on topic and relevant to Benghazi.

The reason is if I am to give my opinion that Benghazi is nothing more than RW political attack on the administration, the RW response to similar issues is my supportive evidence. The previous administration, attacks that occurred and resposnes to it are the nearest time wise comparative evidence.

Saying we cant discuss Bush and attacks that occurred under his administration, means we cant have supportive evidence its simply a political attack.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'd argue to a limited degree its on topic and relevant to Benghazi.

The reason is if I am to give my opinion that Benghazi is nothing more than RW political attack on the administration, the RW response to similar issues is my supportive evidence. The previous administration, attacks that occurred and resposnes to it are the nearest time wise comparative evidence.

Saying we cant discuss Bush and attacks that occurred under his administration, means we cant have supportive evidence its simply a political attack.

I agree that in the capacity of demonstrating the lack of authenticity in the outrage you can't ignore occurrences under the previous administration and the lack of outrage that occurred during those events. It's apples to apples.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'd argue to a limited degree its on topic and relevant to Benghazi.

The reason is if I am to give my opinion that Benghazi is nothing more than RW political attack on the administration, the RW response to similar issues is my supportive evidence. The previous administration, attacks that occurred and resposnes to it are the nearest time wise comparative evidence.

Saying we cant discuss Bush and attacks that occurred under his administration, means we cant have supportive evidence its simply a political attack.

I agree and had nothing to do with Eaglekeeper's post or thread title edit.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'd argue to a limited degree its on topic and relevant to Benghazi.

The reason is if I am to give my opinion that Benghazi is nothing more than RW political attack on the administration, the RW response to similar issues is my supportive evidence. The previous administration, attacks that occurred and resposnes to it are the nearest time wise comparative evidence.

Saying we cant discuss Bush and attacks that occurred under his administration, means we cant have supportive evidence its simply a political attack.

If one looks at the majority of posts above the REQUEST, they are concentrating on Bush/Iraq.

If there is a comparison between the two desired; then please start a thread that details the comparison desired and take the discussion along that vein.


EK
Admin

 

[Moonbeam]

If one looks at the majority of posts above the REQUEST, they are concentrating on Bush/Iraq.

If there is a comparison between the two desired; then please start a thread that details the comparison desired and take the discussion along that vein.


EK
Admin

It seems to me that in order to understand the Libya thingi you need to understand the Republican mind and in order to understand that you need to see how Republicans react to their own Libya thingis. When the shoe is on the other foot they have a completely different reaction. The contrast between how they see their own peccadillos and those of Democrats is vital to understanding the bubble they live in and how dangerous it is. Republican reaction to Benghazi is hypocrisy, that is it's primary feature, and you can't make that claim without showing examples of where that hypocrisy applies, it seems to me.

 

[Kntx]

Question, is the main problem people have with Obama on this issue that he stated the motive of the attacks was a response to a YouTube video rather than a planned attack?

 

[Mxylplyx]

It seems that the thread was started regarding Benghazi and the inquiries of the Obama administration handling of such.

Within the original thread title nor in the OP is any mention of Iraq or Bush.

Please keep on topic

EK
Admin

Bringing up Bush is very relevant to this thread. I am trying to gauge the sincerity of the Republican outrage over the Benghazi episode, and comparing the Republican outrage over Benghazi to their reaction (ambivalence) to a much more serious failure that actually resulted in a protracted war, with much supporting evidence to suggest that the case for war was based a deliberate misinterpretation of intelligence, is a valid way to do that.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Question, is the main problem people have with Obama on this issue that he stated the motive of the attacks was a response to a YouTube video rather than a planned attack?

It would seem to me that this whole conspiracy was kicked off by that remark, which I dont quite understand. Two foreign embassies had been assaulted in the days leading up to Benghazi, and as soon as I heard about Benghazi I assumed it was related. Now perhaps a state department official should have been a little more cautious about publicly airing reasonable yet uncorroborated assumptions, but that is more for the sake of professionalism and maintaining a consistent message, and I fail to see what real harm was caused by it. Somehow being mistaken has turned into being misleading, and being misleading is borne of conspiracy, so now the race is on to undercover this mythical conspiracy, whatever it may be.

 

[ivwshane]

Question, is the main problem people have with Obama on this issue that he stated the motive of the attacks was a response to a YouTube video rather than a planned attack?

That's what it seems like but then when you address that and show that A) he called it a terrorist attack B) Rices description of the attacks were purposely vague and followed talking points created by the intelligence community, they then change the outrage to how the attack could have been prevented or minimized.

So I think that's a good question you asked. You should ask it in the Benghazi P&N thread, I bet you will get different answers.


If the question is a matter of how the president and subsequently those below him, responded then I'd have to ask if the outrage on the right is consistent with reactions to responses of previous admins.

For example:
At the end of Clinton's 2nd term he had an opportunity to kill bin laden but did not give the strike a green light because the target was too close to a church or school and he didnt want take the risk of killing innocent people.
One could say that this decision lead to 3000 Americans dying on 9/11. Should Clinton have been put on trial for that decision? Was the right outraged at that decision? Should they be outraged?

Of course a similar decision was made by the Bush admin to ignore the intelligence report labled "Bin laden determined to attack". Was the right outraged about that?
Maybe that was too early in bushs presidency to get outraged.

So then what about the Bush admins decision not to send in reinforcements to Afghanistan when they had bin laden on the run? Was the right outraged then?


Being high up in the government making big decisions isn't easy and it certainly doesn't mean the right decisions are made 100% of the time.

So the question then becomes; what do we do when officials make the wrong decision? Get outraged? Remove them? Find out why the decision was made and do something to make sure it doesn't happen again? Or do nothing and chalk it up to just more government incompetence? What has been the rights response to past "errors"?

I'm sure if we look at history it will become clear just how serious Benghazi is to the right.

Having answered all of the above I would then ask those on the right how they feel their representatives have handled this incident?

 

[ivwshane]

It would seem to me that this whole conspiracy was kicked off by that remark, which I dont quite understand. Two foreign embassies had been assaulted in the days leading up to Benghazi, and as soon as I heard about Benghazi I assumed it was related. Now perhaps a state department official should have been a little more cautious about publicly airing reasonable yet uncorroborated assumptions, but that is more for the sake of professionalism and maintaining a consistent message, and I fail to see what real harm was caused by it. Somehow being mistaken has turned into being misleading, and being misleading is borne of conspiracy, so now the race is on to undercover this mythical conspiracy, whatever it may be.

Usually conspiracies are kept to the fringe and don't invade the normal public space but the Republican Party has embraced the right wing nuts and conspiracy theory nuts are now in congress and are very vocal and influential in pursuing their agenda. You would think that after Mcarthy Americans would have shunned such behavior but that doesn't appear to be the case and it looks like history will be repeating itself.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Being high up in the government making big decisions isn't easy and it certainly doesn't mean the right decisions are made 100% of the time.

I think it is important to understand that the right decision does not necessarily mean it results in the most agreeable outcome. If Bin Laden is in an orphanage with 100 children, and you decide to NOT blow up the orphanage and everyone in it to kill him, does that become the wrong decision if in the years afterwards Al Qaeda attacks result in the deaths of 1000 children? My response is absolutely not.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Usually conspiracies are kept to the fringe and don't invade the normal public space but the Republican Party has embraced the right wing nuts and conspiracy theory nuts are now in congress and are very vocal and influential in pursuing their agenda. You would think that after Mcarthy Americans would have shunned such behavior but that doesn't appear to be the case and it looks like history will be repeating itself.

You would think that after the ridicule they lodged against the 9/11 truthers, and believe me they deserved the ridicule, they would have a distaste for conspiracy, but put a D after the targets name and they'll believe it. At least the truthers attempted to establish a motive (revenge for daddy and oil), and being an oil man with an oil man for VP at least makes for a compelling story. It seems the Benghazi people didn't even fabricate a motive for this conspiracy first. Reminds me of the Kenneth Star investigation. "We don't know what we're looking for, but we'll know it when we see it"

 

[lotus503]

If one looks at the majority of posts above the REQUEST, they are concentrating on Bush/Iraq.

If there is a comparison between the two desired; then please start a thread that details the comparison desired and take the discussion along that vein.


EK
Admin

Fair enough just to make sure I understand correctly, if I want to use the Bush admin and events that happened during his admin as comparative supportive evidence I shouldn't be posting in this thread and should start a new one.

I can do that but feel compelled to add the only thing your really doing is telling me why bother posting here.

I cant contribute constructively given the constraints you want to place on discussion. Its frankly what I was hoping wouldn't happen here. I thought the point was honest discourse and discussion absent the insults and rhetoric ,not stifling it.

This was my first time back in here after a layoff and busy work schedule.
My last time back here off a layoff and busy work schedule we had another issue related to whats actually topical, in that case it was the use of the word whore.

I feel I spend more time trying to explain why my positions and posts are topical and should be left to stand than actually contributing.

Its really counter productive to my time at this point, which is somewhat limited already.

Best of luck on the discussion club, but I'm out