The Benghazi Incident

[Happy Monkey]

Would they feel better if it was a vast conspiracy?

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Would they feel better if it was a vast conspiracy?

No, but I don't take the murder of 4 Americans, including an ambassador, lightly.

[Griff]

Neither does anyone else.

wiki's incomplete list- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks...tic_facilities

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

No, but I don't take the murder of 4 Americans, including an ambassador, lightly.

People die in fuck-ups. Doesn't make it light.

It's Issa's circus that is treating it lightly.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

But that should still not make a non-event worth worrying about (Benghazi) .

Are you out of your fucking mind? Benghazi a non incident? The dfirst US Ambassador killed since the Peanut farmer was in office and thats a non-event to you? Srsly????

[sexobon]

In that context, I took the use of the term non-event to mean not a scandal (i.e. not an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong) by the US government.

The government sends soldiers and diplomats into harm's way all the time. There are no guarantees of safety.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

There is such a double standard with a lot of these posts. I guess you "I told you so" people on Benghazi were the same people who said this should have been over a long time ago. Yet, I guess, you all also think the "Senate" report on torture is somehow still relevant many years later. What a hatchet job! Let's face it there are idiots i.e. political opportunists on both sides. The Dems got their clocks cleaned in the last election and they will resort to anything to switch the attention back to Bush/Cheyney. Enjoy the next two years! You deserve it!

Originally Posted by BigV

We've had numerous reports about the "Benghazi incident" (tm). None of them turned up anything like the hoped-for scandal heavily promoted by Fox News and their ilk. Lots of looking, lots of investigation, and no evidence of wrongdoing.

The " "Senate" " (really? that needs ironic quotes? we're talking about the same Senate, right?) report on torture reveals new information, in stark contrast to the expected standard of behavior by the CIA. I don't see the double standard you're talking about.


Political opportunists on both sides? all sides. Hell yeah. But that should still not make a non-event worth worrying about (Benghazi) or excuse torture (CIA), regardless of the political motivations of the messenger.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Would they feel better if it was a vast conspiracy?

Originally Posted by sexobon

In that context, I took the use of the term non-event to mean not a scandal (i.e. not an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong) by the US government.

The government sends soldiers and diplomats into harm's way all the time. There are no guarantees of safety.

sexobon's understanding of my meaning is precisely correct. well put, sexobon, thanks.

We've been talking about the relative scandalousness of these two events. One's been the subject of considerable investigation and no vast conspiracy uncovered. The other has had less investigation, but alarming evidence of wrongdoing has been found. That's the difference.

[Lamplighter]

Yahoo News - Meredith Shiner - 1/27/15

Democrats accuse GOP of breaking promises on Benghazi panel

Democrats on the special House panel investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks
have accused Republicans of conducting the committee’s work without them
and withholding information that would undermine the credibility of the panel itself,
according to three letters obtained by Yahoo News.

The previously unreported letters, sent by Democrats to the special select committee’s chairman,
Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, underscore ongoing Democratic concerns that
the panel is a partisan witch hunt rather than a neutral attempt to uncover the truth.

At the same time, Democrats contend that the panel’s tactics reflect the heat
Republicans are feeling to produce an outcome different from those of the previous
seven congressional reports, which debunked the conservative conspiracy theories
surrounding the attacks.

[classicman]

Hillary willing to testify before Benghazi panel

“With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans — what difference at this point does it make?” Clinton said. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

Story here

[Lamplighter]

Rather than me typing it all over, I just quote Griff from last November.

Originally Posted by Griff

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a...ghazi-theories

WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

This was the final report of the "Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee"


@Classic: What needs to happen to put Benghazi to rest ?

Is the goal to discredit Hillary Clinton ?
Is the goal to impeach Barack Obama ?
If not these, specifically what is the goal ?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

@Classic: What needs to happen to put Benghazi to rest ?

Some people will look for anything to justify cheapshots. Limbaugh is only one example.

[classicman]

@Lamp - why you asking me? I just noticed the article and thought it relevant. IMO, Hillary wasn't the problem as much as Obama.

Tommy boy - you are another example. Now kindly fuck right on off mmmkay?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

@Lamp - why you asking me?

Followed by

IMO, Hillary wasn't the problem as much as Obama.

What problem?

They spent years trying to find a problem to pin on Obama or Hillary and failed. Now they're starting again.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What problem?

What problem? Neither Hillary nor Obama gave the investigating committees a single shred, not a hint of a shred, to build a case on. That's what problem.

[regular.joe]

Guys, would like the opinion of a guy who has been in a very similar country, under very similar conditions? What I mean is a country like Pakistan, where the threat is very high, in a city like...say Peshawar, away from the Embassy in the capital, with a small consulate, doing a job with a very small footprint with large political (home and geopolitical) implications for just about anything that happens?

I'm just going to tell you up front, if you are a Republican on a witch hunt, you won't want to hear what I have to say.