Benghazi Hearings (Page 8)

In hindsight, did Hillary and Obama screw this up framing wise, yes. 

In the following months though, was there already an investigation? Hell yes. 11 hearings. 25,000 documents turned over. Were changes made as a result? yes. Was it a tragedy? yes. Was it an act of terror? yes.

Would it have been a less of a terror attack and less devastating had it been a result of an angry protest mob who stormed the Consulate at Bengazzi? no. 

Angry protest mobs don't storm Consulates that are properly guarded. Angry protest mobs usually break up at the first sound of gunfire. Been there.

So who investigates this? The Admin kept the FBI out of the scene for weeks after the attack even with Marine Fast Teams ready to escort them to the Consulate. And we've seen that this Admin likes to edit official documents before they go out. S who do you suppose should investigate this?

The 9/11 commission was pretty effective in finding out what happened there. The Baker Commission on Iraq was dead wrong. They said a surge would have no effect-Wrong.

So who investigates? And how do we make sure the findings are as close to true as possible?

ahem, tinfoil hats are only allowed on the right

btw, the whole budget thing is spin at it's finest.  Here's an article describing the whole thing:
Republicans challenge Clinton claims on budget cuts, Benghazi cable

Notable quotes from the article:

• the overall security budget has more than doubled since fiscal 2004
• then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb testified in October that the size of the attack -- and not the money -- was the issue.
  Asked if there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase the security force, she said: "No."
  She added: "This was an unprecedented attack in size." Asked again about budget issues, Lamb said: "Sir, if it's a volatile situation, we will move assets to cover that."
• But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said "any suggestion that this is a budget issue is off base, or political."
• Other lawmakers further complained that the State Department has spent millions on lower-priority projects that could have been spent on security.
  

I know Clinton tried to make it an issue, but IMHO she failed miserably.

There are almost 300 US embassies throughout the world. (Benghazzi is not one of them, it's a consulate) 

The issues with security had to do with the regional detail within Libya. no? Washington does not make all the day to day decisions I'm thinking, does it?

What kind of government would we have if members of a political party held their own to the same standards as they demand of the other?

What kind of government would we have if there were severe spending limits on political campaigns?

The Washington Post even called this one a lie.  4 Pinocchios...

8 day after the attack he was asked on Univision:

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

 If it was truly a terrorist attack, and he meant that in his Rose Garden speech then why not come out and say YES to a direct question?

On The View almost 2 weeks after the attacks:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

 Again, a perfect opportunity to say "yes this was an act of terrorism" and he did not.

You hypothetical requires, possibly unconstitutional, laws.  Mine just requires that people stop acting like mindless drones.

Honestly, both are pretty improbable...

That's a bit optimistic.

Why would spending limits be unconstitutional? 

See, I think "assuming" the vast majority of our population is "mindless" would require the kind of government that is highly unconstitutional. 

An angry, spur of the moment. disorganized mob responding to a youtube video can commit an "act of terror"...which is the story the Administration tried to pawn off on us.  That is a totally different animal than a well-establish, known terrorist group planning and carrying out an attack on us in Benghazi...i.e. "a terrorist attack"

You're making it sound bad that he read a prepared speech the day following the attack.  He could have taken questions, but when the investigation is still active, what kind of answers would you expect?  There would be a lot of, "We don't know at this time."  "An investigation is under way to determine who is responsible/what happened, etc."  It all leads us back to the question, "Do you trust the President?"  Those who don't will think conspiracy, those who do will think it's prudent to figure out what's going on before speaking prematurely.  Heck, wasn't this the attack that Romney jumped on 1st playing politics before the dust even settled?  I think it was.

Well, look at this new article.  It appears 100's of e-mails were released and that it was the CIA that revised its own talking points on September 14th from "attacks" to "demonstrations."  

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/under-fire-white-house-releases-benghazi-talking-points-211835318.html

Any thoughts?  I'm guessing Hannity, et al won't be apologizing for the accusations of cover-up.

Again, the points went from exactly right to dead wrong...

I also noticed a lot of "pro words" used in that email between Patraeus and whoever sent the final email for "concurrence" which Patraeus never really gave. Guess you haven't been around too many situations where discoverable emails are written in certain code. I guarantee there was at least 3 phone calls before, during, and after that email.

Hmm, this sentence stuck out to me in that article:

"Victoria Nuland, who serves as a State Department spokeswoman, expressed some concerns about the talking points, including a reference to prior attacks in Benghazi, which Nuland said could suggest security warnings were ignored. Senior administration officials said Wednesday that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell had supported those changes independently prior to being aware of Nuland's concerns."

So now you're accusing the CIA Deputy Director of being involved in your alleged "cover up?"  

Wasn't it Carney in the press briefing Friday that said "If tell someone to make changes and they make the changes then they made the changes".