The report debunks several often-repeated assertions about the attack, including that it erupted spontaneously after protests outside the gates and that the U.S. military could have scrambled personnel and aircraft in the region quickly enough to come to Stevens' aid.Not a word on where the commander in chief was during the attack? I mean, we know there was a failure, 4 Americans died. But what did we do about it?
In a scathing separate conclusion, six Republicans on the panel said the report showed that "Americans serving in Libya were vulnerable; the State Department knew they were vulnerable; and no one in the administration really did anything about it."
Since the attack, no senior officials at the State Department have been fired or disciplined and none of the attackers in Libya have been taken into custody, even though one of them, Ahmed abu Khattala "continued to live freely in Libya while giving taunting interviews to major media outlets," the lawmakers said.
Within hours of the initial attack, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered special operations teams and Marine security to respond, but the only military asset that arrived while the assault was still underway was an unarmed Predator drone, a failure the report criticizes.
Would it be premature to call this report a whitewash?
39 comments:
Yet during the same period, Stevens and other embassy officials also sent several messages to Washington warning that conditions in Benghazi were worsening and asking for additional security, the committee found.
No "significant actions were taken," the report says. It does not provide any new insight on whether those requests reached Clinton's desk, which she has denied.
Has Hillary ever taken a significant action?
How come there are No stories on any of this. If true, I would believe to be significant.
Or are we seeing a Benghazi 'truthing' situation a la 9/11.
I mean, this can't be all there is. that's all I have to say.
According to Regie Love, Obama was playing cards.
The reason this story has no traction, I think, is because Americans are opposed to any further international military involvement, damn the reason or consequences.
That's not an unreasonable outlook.
I assume there's a system in place so the president is never captured on video reading to school kids during a crisis.
The media won't talk about it because the party loyalty media are satisfied with the lie that "it was the video".
I recall Obama was getting ready for a big party and fund raiser in Las Vegas. I don’t recall if the fund raiser was cancelled. I don’t think so.
Hillary? She spent the entire time as Sec State partying. Life is good at the top. Why can't everyone cooperate?
The party must go on, because, you know, at this point, what difference does it make?
Why would any democrat, especially a Clinton, be expected to take responsibility for failures that led to the deaths of 4 of our men and the destruction of an embassy?
Come on. It's Hillary. Matt Damon, The top executives at NBC, Harvey Weinstein and the NYTimes insist you worship her.
Any other candidate would be disqualified. Not Hillary. Why?: Media hype and her victim status among the feminist elite. Odd that Hillary is praised for standing by her cheating husband because it helps her in her power seeking. All A-OK with the feminist crowd. What a weird hypocritical deal.
As I say, this isn't going away.
The fact this happened in Harry Reid's Senate shows that, even there, the pressure is still on to address this.
Some of it may be an urge to throw the Hildabeast under the bus ("caused by the failure of the State Department to adequately protect the facility") to save Choom, but even that won't work in the end.
Shouting Thomas said...
The reason this story has no traction, I think, is because Americans are opposed to any further international military involvement, damn the reason or consequences.
If it didn't have any traction, we wouldn't still be reading about it more than a year later.
How does a person risk their life serving under the command of people like this, and not feel like a sucker?
The story has traction right up until the people to blame are shown to be Democratic stars Obama and Clinton. That's what stops it. The press will never take these two down - the "first Black President" and the "first woman President" - saints without any accomplishments, no miracles, just an unwritten religious devotion.
How does a person risk their life serving under the command of people like this, and not feel like a sucker?
Paycheck?
I wouldn't call it a "whitewash". You would notice a big white wall. This is camouflage. They are hiding the big failures (the people they want to protect) among a bunch of similar looking lesser failures, hoping you will pass over it all satisfied that you know what you saw didn't include anything really important.
As I say, this isn't going away and the Demos are getting more and more desperate to cover the lies.
The press will never take these two down - the "first Black President" and the "first woman President" - saints without any accomplishments, no miracles, just an unwritten religious devotion.
"Why not? She doesn’t really have an answer; in the past, she has deflected questions by pointing out that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in Benghazi, was someone she knew well and cared about; there is no doubt that he was. Despite her performance at a hearing last year, when she wondered why exactly what happened really mattered, callous indifference is not the answer here. (That won’t stop the clip of her testimony from playing in political ads if she runs for President.) But her reluctance to change course may have been influenced by her heavy investment in the decision to take military action in Libya; the former defense secretary Robert Gates writes in his new memoir that hers was the voice that swayed the balance. (Joe Biden was on the other side.) Libya was one of the things she had managed in her stint as Secretary of State, for which she had been so praised. Also, again, Libya was supposed to be something we were done with; now it will be a question Hillary Clinton has to contend with in 2016, and, in fairness, rightly so."
Oooh, a "harsh report"??? That'll teach 'em.
Overlooked by everyone is the statement by General Ham, when questioned as to why F-16s stationed in Italy ( who could have gotten there in PLENTY of time) were not launched, replied that he had deemed there use as "not appropriate." Unfortunately no one followed-up by asking upon what basis he deemed them "inappropriate."
Now, if I were a betting man--and I am--I'd wager (based upon my experience as a fighter pilot) that his ans would have been along the lines of either a) outside the ROE or b) even if NOT outside the ROE he still thought their use would be too "indiscriminate," i.e., put at risk too many Libyan civilian lives because of the inaccuracies or its internal gun (assuming they hadn't had time to load gps-type ordinance ) Now think about the implications of that line of thought. A flag officer of the armed forces of the United States (and, I'm assuming his superiors at the DOD and the WH because they concurred with his decision) thought the lives of Libyan foreign nationals MORE valuable than those of American citizens, State Dept employees and CIA officers. But is this all not of a piece. At the time of the Ft. Hood shooting did not the Chief of Staff of the Army say that if it damaged the Army's "diversity" program that THAT would be an even greater damage than the deaths of his own soldiers?
Lions led by donkeys..
Corr: "...'an even greater tragedy' than the deaths of his own soldiers."
To coin a phrase, what difference, at this point, does it make? What are you learning from all of this, that the Administration was inept? That it completely bungled its security responsibility to its own personnel in Libya? That it fucked up any possibility of an immediate response that may have saved American lives? That this was an intelligence failure? That the Administration totally and completely fucked up the messaging about what happened by blatantly lying about the event to the American people repeatedly? That the media largely covered for the Administration and largely still does?
Not a damned thing new here, except that the Senate, full of the most august thinkers in the land, finally managed to find its ass with both hands almost a year and a half later, after having been given a two hand and one hundred ass head-start.
If you want moderately entertaining (for those with a very black sense of humor, metaphorically speaking) news, read the New York Times article on Obama's transformation from someone (allegedly) opposed to government snooping on its citizens, to someone who favors as much of it as possible.
Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying
There are several amazing bits in this story. But the best bits are that Obama's closest advisers basically admit that the President had no idea, upon being inaugurated, that the US faced dangerous terrorist threats, that the President believes the best way to catch plots hatched in Nigeria is by checking the cell phone records of grandmothers in Peoria, and that the President's advisers believe that while all this awesome power is okay in Obama's hands it just MIGHT be a problem in the hands of someone much less awesome. It's as though the thought had never occurred to any of them before, and it is clear that the thought never entered Obama's head.
Even that isn't much of a bombshell, as it just shows that President and his advisers as a bunch of clueless bunglers again, but at least it has a few things that are slightly new to it.
The problem here is that Obama has committed a wide variety of impeachable offenses, and impeachment and removal from office is the only proper response.
That's not going to happen because he's the first black President.
So, you see, there's no point in going on about this.
There's nothing to do here but wait for the next presidential election.
Worrying about Hillary is premature. Although she's seen as the "inevitable" candidate, people don't really like her that much once she's out on the stump. That's why Obama won.
Worrying about Hillary is premature. Although she's seen as the "inevitable" candidate, people don't really like her that much once she's out on the stump. That's why Obama won.
Actually Obama won in 200 because Plouffe and Axelrod worked their asses off to win big in the caucus states. Hillary actually got more votes through the primary process, but her campaign was very disorganized and disinterested in the caucus states. Administrative work and attention to detail aren't exactly Hillary! strong-suits either. Except when trading cattle futures, of course.
And by strong suits you mean pants suits to hide her cankles.
She is inevitable.
Our country is falling apart at the seams and Urkel went to go take a nap so he could be refreshed for his fund raiser in Vegas while Cankels call forwarded the 3:00am phone call.
Also, again, Libya was supposed to be something we were done with; now it will be a question Hillary Clinton has to contend with in 2016, and, in fairness, rightly so."
In 2016? Is the position of Secretary of State now so unimportant and disrepected that the holder of the office is beneath the interest of the Press?
And by strong suits you mean pants suits to hide her cankles.
For which we are all grateful.
She is inevitable.
She may win, but she is no more inevitable now than she was in 2006. Less so, in fact. The Democratic Party doesn't not like old Presidential candidates, unless they get old in office. And she'll be pushing 70.
Didn't Obama, standing over Ambassador Stevens' coffin refer to the ambassador as "My dear friend John?" What more do you people want?!
chickenlittle said...
bagoh20 said...
How does a person risk their life serving under the command of people like this, and not feel like a sucker?
Duty and obligation. The Germans have a word for it, Pflicht. And it's hidden in our English word, "plight."
I have one remark: long ago I said major commanders and the POTUS knew it was an attack within minutes. Due to CRITICOMM messaging that hits the POTUS and major cabinet members and commanders within 15 minutes of an incident. Generals Ham and Dempsey have confirmed this, as well as Panetta. Dempsey and Panetta met with the POTUS within minutes as well.
They. All. Knew.
They. All. Lied.
And still Lie.
Something in Benghazi needed to be erased.
It was.
Something in Benghazi needed to be erased.
I'm betting it was clandestine arms shipments to very bad, very anti-American groups in Syria and possibly Egypt.
Which is an extremely unoriginal bet on my part, but it seems to fit the facts as we know them.
@Aidog/icepick
Not only did they all lie and continue to lie, but they ALL consciously left Americans to die...sacrificed upon the alter of "the greater good." (Of the Administrations and the maj players reputation, of course)
You know I saw "Independence Day", and the President got in a fighter plane and went after the enemy himself, and he wasn't even a lightworker.
Did you read this part of the Congressional report yesterday?
"The report also noted, chillingly, that the FBI’s investigation of the attacks has been hampered in Libya and that 15 people “supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States” have since been killed in Benghazi. The report said it was unclear whether those killings were related to the inquiry." h/t Michelle Malkin
The U.S. military cannot hunt down and kill people responsible for the deadly 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as long as the terrorists are not officially deemed members or affiliates of al Qaeda, newly declassified transcripts from congressional hearings show.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/195627-benghazi-preventable-says-bipartisan-panel#ixzz2qayLgeVx
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
The progressive borg expects members to be ready to make the sacrifice of going "under the bus" if necessary. It's not like it's unusual. Sometimes a sacrifice is required to advance the Greater Good and the sacrificee expects to be well compensated for his or her loyalty later, after the dust has cleared. Benghazi is different. In Benghazi, "under the bus" meant you were, like, dead. The ultimate sacrifice. And no stealth reparations later.
Must give some of them pause.
If there was nothing wrong with the truth, the truth would have been told, and told in a manner that makes HRC heroic.
Post a Comment