Discussion of Benghazi hearings

colonelciller · May 13, 2013

Craig234 said:
So, who's going to give you 'the truth' - and how important is it really that they mishandled security for that embassy, than say ongoing costs of trillions from banking scandals?

separate issues are separate issues.
why try to misdirect the topic onto atrocious banking problems?

cubby1223 · May 13, 2013

Charles Kozierok said:
Anyone who doubts what the Benghazi hearings are really about need only read this post from one our resident right-wingers, especially the last paragraph.

I thought your "Discussion Club" was supposed to be above partisan call-outs.

There is plenty hypocrisy to go around. There are questions to be answered about Benghazi, there is over-blown media coverage (the same media outlets that overblow Jodi Arias coverage for some perspective).

Since call-outs are okayed in this forum, remember when one of our resident progressives kept saying the attacks on Wis. Gov. Walker were perfectly okay because it is payback for Gray Davis' recall? Remember the non-stop investigations? This topic is fresh on my mind because, living just a few miles south of the WI border, I saw my own progressive friend who has lived in Madison for ~8 years now, we were all good friends before politics, and we all try to be, but even another friend of mine who is a die-hard liberal, probably will never vote Republican ever in his life, cannot stand our Madison friend at times. Every discussion anyone has with him, and we all try to stay far away from politics at all costs, he always finds a way to bring the discussion back to "what Rachel Maddow said to me last night." But this weekend over and over and over again non-stop complaining about everything Walker is doing, total genuine outrage. Except the fact that half the things he is outraged over, Illinois is implementing the same changes Walker made, but not a word is ever spoken about Illinois, te state he grew up in and parents still live in, never a word of outrage. It is all focused on the letter 'R'.

Yes, the world will be a better place if Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were quarantined on an island with no outside access.

But you know what? It goes both ways. If you are not willing to turn off Rachel Maddow then you will never be a part of any productive solution.

Craig234 · May 13, 2013

colonelciller said:
it is about being lied to by the administration for PR purposes.
if the administration outright lied about the facts (or pretended not to have said facts) simply to do better in the presidential campaign, then every thinking person should be outraged.

if on the other hand, there was no lie and no coverup then that would be good to know as well.

Which is it:
*lies, misdirection, cover-up to help win an election
*no lies, no misdirection, no cover-up whatsoever

people should want to know, whether they are Democrat, Republican, no party affiliation, never voted, whatever.

I can't agree that much. There are questions, how egregious were the lies, what harm did they cause?

Other motivations are coming out as well - CIA-State disagreements over bureacratic issues like the CIA not wanting to look like it had missed the attack planning, to not wanting to give Republicans unnecessary information they'd irresponsibly hype - not good reasons but different than you listed.

You do have to put this in some perspective for importance with what administrations do.

Investigations were going on that would reveal the accurate picture, and did so within days. What harm was really done here?

When you do put it in that perspective, it's a problem, criticisms are justified, but it is a bit like having Mexican drug cartels complain that a drug user ripped them off for $100.

Carl Bernstein made the point this morning that Washington has become so poisonous that both sides are going too far paranoid the other will hype and abuse ngative information.

Let's take just one example that actually did get some press - when Republicans wanted to spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars they didn't need to to pay list prices to their biggest donor industry, big pharma, for a new drug benefit, some Republicans put a limit on what they'd spend for the bill. The administration, it came out, had not only misled about the costs - it had threatened the job of the government analyst whose responsibility it was to provide Congress with independent estimates of the cost if he didn't fudge the numbers.

The WMD issue has been brought up - but remember Cheney's unprecedented personal visits to the CIA to pressure analysts responsible for providing independent analysis.

There are many, many such examples that are far worse than this. This didn't prevent the truth for long, didn't change any big policies (or any small one), didn't cost money or kill.

It didn't violate people's civil rights. It simply slowed the release of information about the attacks for a few days in some bureacratic bungling for a few days that did not involve Hillary Clinton or President Obama as far as the evidence has shown in the extensive inestigation.

It is valid to put it in context which this is not even close to really getting to

And let's not forget the Republican mishandling of the information early on that was a lot more egrigious IMO that they had zero interest in, and would have had if Romney won.

So the claim 'we should all be outraged' I think is not justified. Critical of this and thousands of worse examples in recent years some which really are outrages, ya.

Falling victim to people who waste a billion dollars and then hype the waste of a thousand dollars by the other side, voting out the big money wasters of $1000, is not a good idea.

Craig234 · May 13, 2013

colonelciller said:
separate issues are separate issues.
why try to misdirect the topic onto atrocious banking problems?

I'm not sayijng to discuss the toping of banking problems here, against it's providing context for the issue about the level of outrage and reaction people should have.

randomrogue · May 14, 2013

colonelciller said:
Which is it:
*lies, misdirection, cover-up to help win an election
*no lies, no misdirection, no cover-up whatsoever

people should want to know, whether they are Democrat, Republican, no party affiliation, never voted, whatever.

What lies? What cover up? What are the allegations and why is there an allegation?

"Act of terror"? Who gives a shit?

Romney making misleading statements during the attack? Who gives a shit? He lost.

Maybe next time the drone will have weapons on it and change things. Maybe they won't assume the fight is over. Either way it's 4 people dead and honestly I don't give a shit. Neither should you. It's partisan politics and really a waste of our time and money.

Charles Kozierok · May 14, 2013

cubby1223 said:
I thought your "Discussion Club" was supposed to be above partisan call-outs.

It's certainly not above partisanship. And I didn't intend that as a "callout", though I suppose in retrospect some might see it that way, and I'm sorry in that case.

I just saw it as a rare glimpse of honesty into what is really driving this investigation.

cubby1223 said:
Except the fact that half the things he is outraged over, Illinois is implementing the same changes Walker made, but not a word is ever spoken about Illinois, te state he grew up in and parents still live in, never a word of outrage. It is all focused on the letter 'R'.

I agree, and I don't like it either way. I personally want to see a reasonable investigation into Benghazi, one that focuses on the important things: finding out why this happened, who did it and how we can prevent it in the future. There's too much arguing over who said what about a video. The only people who care about this are the ones who have been trying to get the rest of us to care about it for the last six months.

FWIW, I never watch Rachel Maddow, but I do listen to Sean Hannity regularly.

Gonad the Barbarian · May 14, 2013

More Benghazi lies exposed:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

ivwshane · May 14, 2013

Gonad the Barbarian said:
More Benghazi lies exposed:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

Oops! Dont worry though, there are lots of wolves out there and the republicans will get one eventually!

Charles Kozierok · May 14, 2013

Voters trust Clinton over GOP on Benghazi:

PPP's newest national poll finds that Republicans aren't getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton's +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.

Voters think Congress should be more focused on other major issues right now rather than Benghazi. By a 56/38 margin they say passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill is more important than continuing to focus on Benghazi, and by a 52/43 spread they think passing a bill requiring background checks for all gun sales should be a higher priority.

Harabec · May 14, 2013

Amazing...as if the leaders of a country of 300 million people do not have more important things to discuss instead of being little babies, while dragging folks who should not really care along for the ride.

Sometimes I think you're better off with just 1 representive of each state, even perhaps 1 responsible for a couple of states, similar to those depicted in Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon.

John Liberty · May 14, 2013

Am I missing something? An ambassador and three others are killed in a planned terrorist attack on an American consulate (diplomatic facility?), the government says the four were killed during a protest. Turns out the government knew from at least the next day, if not almost immediately, but stuck to the protest story for weeks. The ambassador had been requesting extra security for months and the requests were rejected. There were military assets that could have arrived in time to perhaps save some lives and the assets were told to stand down. Somehow this whole situation is not important? Nothing to see here, there's no there there. I see many of the posters here would like to use other situations with other administrations to call this 'nothing'. Sorry, to many, this is something. Does it require all of the hyperbole? I think the breathless accusations diminish the importance. Let the facts drive the story.

Harabec · May 14, 2013

Gonad the Barbarian said:
More Benghazi lies exposed:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

As an outsider this looks like "we've grown too big to know wtf everyone is doing and wtf they're doing it on".

Craig234 · May 14, 2013

John Liberty said:
Am I missing something? An ambassador and three others are killed in a planned terrorist attack on an American consulate (diplomatic facility?), the government says the four were killed during a protest. Turns out the government knew from at least the next day, if not almost immediately, but stuck to the protest story for weeks. The ambassador had been requesting extra security for months and the requests were rejected. There were military assets that could have arrived in time to perhaps save some lives and the assets were told to stand down. Somehow this whole situation is not important? Nothing to see here, there's no there there. I see many of the posters here would like to use other situations with other administrations to call this 'nothing'. Sorry, to many, this is something. Does it require all of the hyperbole? I think the breathless accusations diminish the importance. Let the facts drive the story.

Yes, you're missing a lot.

First, from the start the government didn't say they WERE killed in a protest (not that it's clear to me what it matters the early suspicions were). They put qualifiers saying that it was early information that could change if I remember the reports correctly. Obama made a clear point this week - that three days after the Sunday talk shows, the administration had sent a representative claryifing it was a terrorists attack; he asked, why would the administration set up a big deception for three days? It makes no sense.

The real issue it seems to me is not the 'talking points'. Rather it's simply the problem with security.

I'm a bit behind on that; I just heard that a big factor was that State didn't even want to call this an embassy, it was minimal - but it had a big CIA area, and they counted on the CIA for security. This can get into all kinds of CIA versus state type issues to try to sort out what went wrong - but they immediately did a major effort to identify improvements.

What are you basing the claim on that military assets were availble in time? That contradicts every bit of evidence I've seen - the issue was the planning.

I do think we have yet to have the public get much understanding of just why requests were denied by people under Hillary. That's a legitimate question.

The might be good answers or bad answers for state - I just haven't seen that info, maybe it's out.

Crap happens. Ever hear of Operation Tiger? Here's the report I've seen:

In WWII, planning for D-DAY, troops were sent on a training mission to practice landing. It was night; suddently eight German torpedo boats found them and attacked, boats were sunk, soldiers drowned; 749 US troops were lost in a training exercise. They say the military covered it up and lied about it for 40 years, authorized by Eisenhower.

Looking back at it they say two important factors were a lack of escort vessels and a screwup with radio frequencies.

Crap happens. As I recall, Eisenhower wasn't driven out of public life for that mistake.

The total hype by the opposition party gets to be a problem. Right-wing posters in this forum seem a lot more responsible about it than Congress.

MomentsofSanity · May 14, 2013

Gonad the Barbarian said:
More Benghazi lies exposed:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

And they will carry on as though the misrepresented details of that email are still fact. There will be no acknowledgement of its existence let alone backing off the arguments it generated.

Craig234 · May 15, 2013

Another report on the misrepresented White House e-mail:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/

Craig234 · May 16, 2013

There was a lot of progress on this today, led by the White House releasing all of the e-mail chain in question - showing that its version of the story has been accurate.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ay-have-misled-media-about-key-benghazi-email

Rachel Maddow did a great job summarizing today's events, so a link:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#51899309

Jon Stewart did an interview with former Senator Olympia Snowe, discussing the history of 'Accountability Review Boards' that were created to get the State Department to do better at embassy security planning, after 200 attacks on US embassies in the 1980's and the killing of over 200 Marines in Lebanon by a suicide bomber.

It is interesting to compare Democrats' response to Lebanon with Republicans on Benghazi in terms of searching for any political attacks, parsing talk show comments.

Imagine if the Lebanon disaster happened under Obama? Or there had been 200 attacks on our embassies?

Bowfinger · May 16, 2013

There's an interesting new twist in the Benghazi story. Ambassador Stevens reportedly personally refused two offers from General Ham for additional military security forces. I also posted this in P&N, but thought it was significant enough to put here as well.

Here is the story. Given that I found other news organizations citing McClatchy, I assume this is the original source:

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

CAIRO In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover, said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

He didnt say why. He just turned it down, a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy...

Discussion of Benghazi hearings

Senior member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Golden Member

Junior Member

Golden Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer