Benghazi hearings

[DowningRules]

I'm not sure I follow.  Wouldn't dissecting the changes in the talking points lead to finding out who knew what and at what point did they know it?  And this would in turn lead to figuring out who decided to blame the anti-muslim video for the death of the Americans.  And why there was a stand down order for military intervention? 

 

So, maybe the administration and/or State Department should be more forthcoming in order to prove none of their actions endangered American lives or allowed the escape of the real suspects in the attacks.  And thus, they can show us there were no political motives in the changing of the talking points during the presidential campaign. 

 

To your point, HaloMagic, I fully support the White House being more forthcoming to prove that politics played no role in the response and subsequent p.r. campaign in which Susan Rice was the sacrificial lamb. 

 

Some of the widows of the victims were at the hearings.  Were they politically motivated?

[HaloMagic]

How would finding out who changed the talking points and who blamed riots about a video show why a stand down order was issued?

[Lifetime]

Because it's part of the story? 

[HaloMagic]

Explain? Say Clinton personally changed the points and blamed protests. How does that answer the stand down issue?

[Lifetime]

It doesn't but then I doubt the only goal of the inquiry is to determine who and why the stand down was ordered. I would imagine they'd also like to know if there was a concerted effort to cover up their actions and if so, where was said cover up imitiated and by whom. At least it makes sense to me that they would want to include that discovery. 

[HaloMagic]

So we agree then. The inquiry is good. But mentioning the four dead when someone says they don't think the talking points changes are important is pretty disrespectful.

[Lifetime]

I think both lines of questioning are important but I would say that who and why the stand down decision was made is primary and the ensuing cover up is secondary. However, it isn't necessary to complete one or the other first.I think the whole stinkin' mess is disgusting. 

[mtangelsfan]

I really don't understand the disconnect here.  The talking points could be an attempt to cover up the mistakes that led to four deaths.  If that is so, it should be something to look into, yes?

[DowningRules]

Not as disrespectful as issuing a stand down order while the facility was under attack or being honest with the nation regarding the deaths of four Americans serving their country abroad.

 

So we agree then. The inquiry is good. But mentioning the four dead when someone says they don't think the talking points changes are important is pretty disrespectful.

[HaloMagic]

Glad to know you're slightly less disrespectful than our government. High bar to aim for.

[Scott34]

Not as disrespectful as issuing a stand down order while the facility was under attack or being honest with the nation regarding the deaths of four Americans serving their country abroad.

 

This was a military strategic decision.  I'm sure shades of Somalia 1993 were running through their minds.  Let's not forget that the Libyans have highly advanced weapons including SAM's that could have potentially taken down any U.S. air support.

 

I think the real problem here is far before the actual attack.  Embassies/Consulates in Benghazi, Sanaa, Cairo, Amman should have had much stronger security, especially on 9/11.

[Blarg]

Somalia wasn't a rescue mission to save an ambassador and the lives of his staff. If the decision was centered around fear that a previously botched daytime raid went bad then the entire miltiary staff needs to be removed from the war room and replaced with competent decision makers.

[Scott34]

Somalia wasn't a rescue mission to save an ambassador and the lives of his staff. If the decision was centered around fear that a previously botched daytime raid went bad then the entire miltiary staff needs to be removed from the war room and replaced with competent decision makers.

 

It was just more of a reference.

[arch stanton]

This was a military strategic decision.  I'm sure shades of Somalia 1993 were running through their minds.  Let's not forget that the Libyans have highly advanced weapons including SAM's that could have potentially taken down any U.S. air support.

 

I think the real problem here is far before the actual attack.  Embassies/Consulates in Benghazi, Sanaa, Cairo, Amman should have had much stronger security, especially on 9/11.

This is what interests me. Why were they there without security in the first place? 9/11 or not, they should have been out of there way sooner.

[Lifetime]

Mr President, you're embarrassing.

[fan_since79]

Mr President, you're embarrassing.

http://capitolhilloutsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/obama-nixon.jpg

[Jay]

Obama just needs to come clean on this.  At this point does anybody believe he's telling the truth?

[HaloMagic]

I believe him when he says he called it terrorism in the beginning.

[Glen]

Obama really needs to come clean on this...

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/new-white-house-email-benghazi/65216/

 

 

Huh.  Interesting. 

[mtangelsfan]

Key line in story "if it's relevent".

[VariousCrap]

[Jason]

It's not the fact there was an attack on the embassy. There always will be attacks on our people over there. It's the dishonesty associated with it.

[HaloMagic]

I remember a certain Republican "Virgil Goode voter" who was pretty outraged at Obama before any dishonesty claims were brought to light.

[VariousCrap]

It's not the fact there was an attack on the embassy. There always will be attacks on our people over there. It's the dishonesty associated with it.

 

 

 

Don't buy that for a second.  This is nothing more than Republicans trying to do whatever they can to hurt a Democrat President.

[Jason]

Don't buy that for a second.  This is nothing more than Republicans trying to do whatever they can to hurt a Democrat President.

Of course they want this to look bad on him . That's politics but the admin screwed this up and are lousy at covering it up too. The same has gone for every president I can remember. Someone does need to be held accountable for this mess. Not saying it's Obama but he is the one who appoints these department heads. If he was smart he would bring the hammer down on some of his peeps.