The Truth About Benghazi

Argus · May 15, 2014

Great headline in the Economist.

Back to Benghazi - The House launches another congressional probe, to uncover the truth that the previous eight have missed.

:lol:

Edited May 15, 2014 by Argus

Shady · May 15, 2014

Great headline in the Economist.

Back to Benghazi - The House launches another congressional probe, to uncover the truth that the previous eight have missed.

Well the previous investigations didn't have access to all of the necessary documents. That's a fact. It took a lawsuit by Judicial Watch to get documents released that should have already been released. That's also a fact. So investigations held prior to new and very significant information don't really mean much.

Anyways, 67% of Americans polled approve of the new special committee. If the White House didn't purposely stonewall the release of all documents, there would be no special committee necessary.

Shady · May 15, 2014

Was it ever decided if this actually was a consulate or not? I recall a lot of strong suggestions that it was really a CIA station.

Another good question without an answer.

Bitsy · May 16, 2014

Was it ever decided if this actually was a consulate or not? I recall a lot of strong suggestions that it was really a CIA station.

Another good question without an answer.

Yes, it was known from the beginning that it was a CIA operation.

"First, some important context: Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi consulate was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-alternative-explanation-for-the-benghazi-talking-points-bureaucratic-knife-fight/2013/05/10/22a8df5c-b98d-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

Shady · May 16, 2014

Yes, it was known from the beginning that it was a CIA operation."First, some important context: Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi consulate was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-alternative-explanation-for-the-benghazi-talking-points-bureaucratic-knife-fight/2013/05/10/22a8df5c-b98d-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

It wasn't a bureaucratic knife fight. It was specifically emphasized by the White House communications director. Blame YouTube video and not Obama's policy, even though the CIA and pentagon knew right away it was a terrorist attack. That's now know thanks to a lawsuit by Judicial Watch unsealing documents that should have been released initially when first asked for. Your link pre-dates the lawsuit released documents by almost a full year.

BubberMiley · May 16, 2014

Again: "What difference does it make?"

Bitsy · May 16, 2014

It wasn't a bureaucratic knife fight. It was specifically emphasized by the White House communications director. Blame YouTube video and not Obama's policy, even though the CIA and pentagon knew right away it was a terrorist attack. That's now know thanks to a lawsuit by Judicial Watch unsealing documents that should have been released initially when first asked for. Your link pre-dates the lawsuit released documents by almost a full year.

I answered the question asked, was it a consulate or a CIA outpost. The fact check article pre-dating the new emails does not change the fact that it was a CIA facility.

Argus · May 16, 2014

Well the previous investigations didn't have access to all of the necessary documents. That's a fact. It took a lawsuit by Judicial Watch to get documents released that should have already been released. That's also a fact. So investigations held prior to new and very significant information don't really mean much.

You mean some emails where they discussed talking points? LOL. You think some emails where various administraion figures discussed press releases merits a congressional investigation?

Anyways, 67% of Americans polled approve of the new special committee..

Would this be 67% of FOX viewers, by chance?

Argus · May 16, 2014

I answered the question asked, was it a consulate or a CIA outpost. The fact check article pre-dating the new emails does not change the fact that it was a CIA facility.

No, no, no. That's not what Republicans want. They want it be a State Department facility so they can continue condemning Hillary Clinton for not protecing it.

GostHacked · May 17, 2014

No, no, no. That's not what Republicans want. They want it be a State Department facility so they can continue condemning Hillary Clinton for not protecing it.

IT was a CIA outpost, and most likely involved in weapons running to Syria from Libya.

kimmy · May 17, 2014

So is the reason behind the ongoing temper tantrum over Benghazi really that people are mad they blamed it on the Youtube video instead of saying that the attack was because radicals found out that it was a CIA outpost? I mean, if it was my covert operation that got attacked, I think I'd be giving a false explanation to the public too.

-k

GostHacked · May 17, 2014

So is the reason behind the ongoing temper tantrum over Benghazi really that people are mad they blamed it on the Youtube video instead of saying that the attack was because radicals found out that it was a CIA outpost? I mean, if it was my covert operation that got attacked, I think I'd be giving a false explanation to the public too.

-k

First because of a video, then for a different reason, then yet more different reasons. The story changed constantly, but really what does it matter? According to Clinton, the details of the who and they why are not very important. So yes, they have definitely tried as best they could to cover and bury this story.

TimG · May 17, 2014

So is the reason behind the ongoing temper tantrum over Benghazi really that people are mad they blamed it on the Youtube video instead of saying that the attack was because radicals found out that it was a CIA outpost? I mean, if it was my covert operation that got attacked, I think I'd be giving a false explanation to the public too.

Bengahzi is interesting because it exposes the hypocrisy of people screaming "scandal". If the same set of facts had occurred under a republican government the left wing peanut galley would have been howling in rage and likely doing all of the things that Republicans are doing now. Instead they are minimizing and rationalizing because they have to protect "their guys". Edited May 17, 2014 by TimG

Shady · May 17, 2014

Bengahzi is interesting because it exposes the hypocrisy of people screaming "scandal". If the same set of facts had occurred under a republican government the left wing peanut galley would have been howling in rage and likely doing all of the things that Republicans are doing now. Instead they are minimizing and rationalizing because they have to protect "their guys".

Exaclty. We still don't know what the president did on the night of the attack. The attack went on for 7 hours, yet no effort was made to aid those being attacked. The excuse was that nobody could get there in time. Well, if you don't know how long an attack is going to last for, how do you know? But even more than that, did the president, or secretary of state try to call any allies that might have had some assets in the area that could have aided those being attacked? Has anyone been asked about that? Nope. The incurosity of the mainstream media is astounding.

Also as previous people have mentioned. The administration lied. The defence department, and CIA all knew right away, and communicated those facts to the white house that it was an attack, having nothing to do with a youtube video. But, because of politics, they changed the story as to allow the president to continue with his tough on terrorism campaign talking points, and to avoid criticism of his foreign policy as a whole.

Anyways, I think this says it all about the level of maturity we're dealing with when it comes to this administration. But hey, perhaps this should be Stephen Harpers new reponse to any of the "scandals" facing his administration. Robocalls? Dude, that was like 3 years ago. :lol:

Yes, the process is soo mundane, that the administration classifed the recently released email several weeks after the attack occured, and it took a freedom of information lawsuit from Judicial Watch to have the material released. Even though said material was suppose to have been released for the purpose of the previous hearing and investigation in congress months earlier. Nixon would be proud.

On Guard for Thee · May 18, 2014

Typical Fox trash. They did a nice job on "Dude" though.

Shady · May 18, 2014

Typical Fox trash. They did a nice job on "Dude" though.

No, not typical Fox trash. But that's the typical lazy fallback position. No critical thinking is needed! :lol:

Anyways, ABC News' Jonathan Karl was the real bulldog of the new revelations!

On Guard for Thee · May 18, 2014

No, not typical Fox trash. But that's the typical lazy fallback position. No critical thinking is needed!

Anyways, ABC News' Jonathan Karl was the real bulldog of the new revelations!

A bunch of "he said, she said" Almost as much a waste of time as the Fox trash. Slightly less daytime TV'ish.

Shady · May 18, 2014

A bunch of "he said, she said" Almost as much a waste of time as the Fox trash. Slightly less daytime TV'ish.

Oh of course. Perhaps you should just ignore it then. Leave it to the adults.

Shady · May 18, 2014

It's even a big deal on MSNBC!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OabYOdTwOPM

On Guard for Thee · May 18, 2014

Oh of course. Perhaps you should just ignore it then. Leave it to the adults.

Just a bunch more of the same talking heads. And Americans are especially good at talking all at the same time, saying nothing, very sensationally. I guess it sells soap, but not a good source of info.

dre · May 18, 2014

Remember, they denied the Iran-Contra affair at the start.

Yup and folks like Hardner would have branded people that questioned the government account at the time as "conspiracy theorists". Its conventient to label people on the other side of a debate as "crazy" because then you dont have to debate anything at all.

GostHacked · May 18, 2014

And you know Clinton is on trouble when one of the worst war criminals on the plant call you out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/18/cheney-says-clinton-to-bear-responsibility-for-benghazi-on-fox-news-sunday/

WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on “Fox News Sunday” that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “bears responsibility” for the State Department’s chaotic handling of the Benghazi terrorist attacks in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.

“She was Secretary of State at the time that it happened -- she was one of the first in Washington to know about it,” Cheney said. “I think she clearly bears responsibility for whatever the State Department did or didn’t do with respect to that crisis.”

monty16 · May 21, 2014

What is it that keeps this nonsense alive? Could it be that it's on September 11th. and that resonates with the American lemmings who are pushing it along until it's leterally clattering along down the tracks and falling off the rails in pieces?

GostHacked · May 22, 2014

What is it that keeps this nonsense alive? Could it be that it's on September 11th. and that resonates with the American lemmings who are pushing it along until it's leterally clattering along down the tracks and falling off the rails in pieces?

People wanting answers, that is what is keeping this alive. We have 50 pages on this, but over 200 on Rob Ford.

monty16 · May 22, 2014

People wanting answers, that is what is keeping this alive. We have 50 pages on this, but over 200 on Rob Ford.

What answer do you want? I think all the questions have been answered numerous times already. Is it that you don't like the answers given? Which enquiry would you suggest was corrupted and didn't insist on straight answers? We could look into your claims on this forum because we could probably access anything that has been ever said on the issue in the numerous enquiries.