I hate to admit it but I have no clue what's up with Benghazi and Hillary

[RJB]

I usually feel pretty educated on the issues, but when I seek out info on this, I'll either find an hour long Sean Hannity rant about how people died but nothing substantial about what Hillary did. Liberal hosts say she did nothing wrong but they'd say that if there was a video of her shooting the ambassador in the head herself. Digging hasn't given me much info. Could someone summarize or point out a decent read, please?

What is her supposed crime, negligence, something nefarious, stupidity?

What hard evidence do they have to continue to investigate?

What are they looking for in the investigation?

What separates the death of these 4 men from all the thousands of other deaths in this recent War on Terra, including Afghanistan and Iraq?

Is this just a diversion from something bigger?

Thanks.

[Sola_Fide]

You don't need to really worry about it, because any wrongdoing that Hillary may have engaged in, boobus won't care about it.

[Ronin Truth]

You are not supposed to have a clue. Just more of the usual D.C., smoke and mirrors and spin and BS. :p

[TheCount]

What is her supposed crime, negligence, something nefarious, stupidity?

Depends on how crazy you want to go. Some claim she intentionally blocked support to the annex before or during the attack.



What hard evidence do they have to continue to investigate?

None.



What are they looking for in the investigation?

Political talking points and campaign fodder.



What separates the death of these 4 men from all the thousands of other deaths in this recent War on Terra, including Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing.*



*Actually, IMHO diplomacy is a legit function of the state, so really they had more business being in Libya than our military has business in Iraq or Afghanistan.



Is this just a diversion from something bigger?

Yes. They think that they can make Hillary look so terrible that her future Republican opponent will actually look good by comparison.

[01000110]

Apparently requests for security were made and denied.

Hillary said she wasn't aware of those requests.

Hillary said ambassador Stevens knew how to contact her directly and apparently he didn't? (Something seems odd here). Apparently important emails never reached Hillary.

Team Hillary blamed an "internet video" for weeks as the catalyst for the attack.

Apparently the day of and after (Hillary sent an email to Chelsea saying as much)... that the attack was not a result of the internet video.

And Hillary should be immediately disqualified from office because she is clearly incompetent. She was in charge, and security failed, it's on her.

The "internet video" excuse in my opinion was clearly a coverup to protect Obama with the election around the corner.

[klamath]

Like they did against her husband they are using the stupidest weakest charge against her and leaving the major charges unchallenged.

[heavenlyboy34]

You are not supposed to have a clue. Just more of the usual D.C., smoke and mirrors and spin and BS. :p

This^^ The earliest that the facts will be made known to us mundanes is when it's no longer a relevant issue. And even then, expect the facts to be spun to make TPTB look good and fit the regime's desired narrative.

[brandon]

The Benghazi mess is a pretty fucked up situation that was worth investigating. IMO, Hillary's role in the whole thing is rather minimal, but the GOP strategists saw it as a way to attack her so she has been made the focal point of the whole thing. That's not to absolve her of blame.

The short version of the story is, we had an embassy in Benghazi. This embassy also happened to house a "CIA annex" which has been rumored to have been used a prison and interrogation center for a large part of northern Africa. The locals didn't like this, so they stormed the compound and killed four people. The US government tried to tell us the attack was motivated by some movie on youtube that showed mohammed or some shit. That was quickly proven to be a lie.

The real story is, why did we have the secret CIA base there, and why did the government cover up the cause of the attack rather than admitting it was blowback? The CIA annex aspect of the story has been basically dropped since nearly immediately when it happened.

[fisharmor]

The real story is, why did we have the secret CIA base there, and why did the government cover up the cause of the attack rather than admitting it was blowback? The CIA annex aspect of the story has been basically dropped since nearly immediately when it happened.

I think the real question is, why didn't we just carpet bomb everything within a 20 square mile area surrounding the embassy. Or at least find some scapegoats and string up their disembowled remains outside the building.

Mankind has an 8000 year record of what works and what doesn't when it comes to running empires. If we're gonna do this thing, I wish to hell they would just stop phoning it in.

[CaptainAmerica]

Benghazi was the result of us having hundreds of embassies in countries we do NOT belong in....Hillary is part of the problem, but now shes just a scapegoat for hypocrites in both parties.

[phill4paul]

"She didn't answer the 3 A.M. phone call." - Rand Paul

Does anyone truly believe that no forces were available to counter-strike this attack? In a region where we rule the skies with drones. Does anyone believe that calls from the division head for increased security went unanswered? Does anyone still believe that the situation was caused by a video? That's the official White House version. Or do others even remember that?

[Rad]

Well the guy who was killed was against having security detail, or wanted it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220153/Christopher-Stevens-Ambassador-pleaded-extra-security-Libya-hours-killed.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-stevens-declined-security-091406

She is blamed for the attack in Benghazi. She should be blamed for setting Libya on fire and then spreading it to Syria, leaving death, chaos, and destruction along the way. Libya is her personal crowning achievement in nihilistic destruction of another country.

[HVACTech]

I think the real question is, why didn't we just carpet bomb everything within a 20 square mile area surrounding the embassy. Or at least find some scapegoats and string up their disembowled remains outside the building.

Mankind has an 8000 year record of what works and what doesn't when it comes to running empires. If we're gonna do this thing, I wish to hell they would just stop phoning it in.

Benghazi happened when Qaddafi was deposed.

why was that a good idea bender? :confused:

[TheTexan]

I believe Benghazi was a sex scandal of some type.

[HVACTech]

I believe Benghazi was a sex scandal of some type.

is that why you smell fishy? :confused:

[ghengis86]

The Benghazi mess is a pretty fucked up situation that was worth investigating. IMO, Hillary's role in the whole thing is rather minimal, but the GOP strategists saw it as a way to attack her so she has been made the focal point of the whole thing. That's not to absolve her of blame.

The short version of the story is, we had an embassy in Benghazi. This embassy also happened to house a "CIA annex" which has been rumored to have been used a prison and interrogation center for a large part of northern Africa. The locals didn't like this, so they stormed the compound and killed four people. The US government tried to tell us the attack was motivated by some movie on youtube that showed mohammed or some shit. That was quickly proven to be a lie.

The real story is, why did we have the secret CIA base there, and why did the government cover up the cause of the attack rather than admitting it was blowback? The CIA annex aspect of the story has been basically dropped since nearly immediately when it happened.

Weren't they also running a rat line of weapons from Libya to Syrian Rebels?

[Peace&Freedom]

Weren't they also running a rat line of weapons from Libya to Syrian Rebels?

The fuss over what Hillary did or didn't do during Benghazi is a partisan limited hangout for the deeper false flags, the most immediate one being the CIA gun-running operation to Syria, which was illegal according to the UN, and involved US weapons (not just guns left behind by Libyan fighters).

The likely BIG cover-up is that the siege of the embassy was a botched false flag that went deeply sideways, that was originally designed to benefit Obama. What we don't know for sure, to date, is what went sideways, and who was behind the botch. E.g., according to this video, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said that his sources tell him that Obama was one of the people in the room watching the Benghazi attack go down. Col. Shaffer believes it would have taken an order by the president to intervene or not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGPHm2bpryc

It seems somebody wanted the incident to happen, since the planes that could have stopped it were called off despite senior people refusing to go along. As stated before: The working theory I still think ties this all together, is that the Benghazi incident was part of a false flag that was originally planned to rebound in Obama's favor, that went deeply sideways. E.g., the diplomats were only supposed to be taken hostage, with the anti-Muslim film being cited as the reason. This seems to be backed up by the fact that those performing the siege appear to have known exactly where to go to breach security at the facility, and from there where to find Stevens.

Then a follow-up 'heroic response' was to follow, by way of Barry ordering "the CIA and later the military to launch a rescue mission." The news cycle surrounding the successful (staged) conclusion of the rescue story would eclipse any questions about blaming the film, just as the "we killed Osama" story and news cycle killed widespread scrutiny over the photoshopped birth certificate he released days before the Osama raid in spring 2011.

Only somebody goofed, or got over-eager, or straight out flipped the script and got the diplomats killed instead of captured. Barry was undecided whether to use the military for a reprisal, as now there would be no feel-good "he saved our people" campaign lift coming out of it. The hesitation allowed real questions about the whole event to roll out in the opposite direction that he intended.

Did Bilderberg quietly direct Hillary or the CIA et al to go lethal in Benghazi, behind Obarry's back, as part of it changing the script about his re-election, to instead install Romney as Puppet-in-chief? Or was Mossad/Bibi involved by planting provocateurs among the raiders, who killed the diplomats to embarrass the President, and thus contribute to him losing to Romney? If the latter is true, could this be the reason why relations between Barry and Bibi have worsened since 2012?

If the actual deaths of the diplomats that resulted were not intended, or part of the script, perhaps the White House now wishes it had let the planes stop the assault. But once the op was underway, Obama robotically stuck to the plan to blame the video. Perhaps they were thinking about a way to salvage the op with a new 'stage two' incident to eclipse the first, but Obama nixed it. Otherwise, if the deaths were intended, the blame-the-video narrative makes no sense.

[twomp]

Seymour Hersh wrote a long essay about what the CIA called "The Rat Line" here:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

It was basically a way to send arms from Libya into Turkey which would then be funneled to Al Qaeda also known as "The Syrian Rebels" in Syria. Republicans want to use it to show that Hillary failed the embassy and let Americans die. Democrats say it was an attack and not much could have been done to prevent it. NEITHER SIDE wants to talk about the fact that the United States was sending weapons to Al Qaeda. Which is why we have a gigantic controversy yet no one wants to really dig deep into it.

[RonPaulMall]

Benghazi was the result of us having hundreds of embassies in countries we do NOT belong in....Hillary is part of the problem, but now shes just a scapegoat for hypocrites in both parties.

Though technically Libya wasn't a country anymore at that point, thanks to Hillary. That is the real story, which is being completely obstructed by this stupid Benghazi crap. Hillary was the architect of the Libyan war which turned Libya in to a failed state run by regional warlords and allowed for the exportation of tons of weapons and munitions which would form the arsenal of what eventually would become ISIS. The CIA was using Libya as a staging ground to ship weapons to Syria, and it was while performing that duty that the Ambassador got killed.

[brandon]

Weren't they also running a rat line of weapons from Libya to Syrian Rebels?

Oh yeah - that too.

[ZENemy]

It's free advertisement and gets all eyes on her so she may play the victim, she is our next president.

[surf]

the effing republicans are such a pathetic bunch of idiots here. did anyone of those assclowns ask about CIA and running arms? did anyone ask why there is an embassy in some shit-town no one had ever heard of? did one of these bumblefucks express any concern over what the hell we were doing overthrowing Gadhafi?http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M531017fe9a0f110db38e2b9c849455e3o0&pid=15.1

fucking cowards.

I quizzed a couple of coworkers today - what's the capital of Libya? Benghazi?

[AngryCanadian]

This just goes to shows that there are others controlling DC. Its clear that a Group of NeoCons are behind this as they are on Syria...

[VIDEODROME]

Okay, if Hillary is responsible for Benghazi, is George W. Bush equally and personally responsible for the 9-11 Attack? Put him in the hot seat and interrogate him.

[timosman]

I believe Benghazi was a sex scandal of some type.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

[phill4paul]

Okay, if Hillary is responsible for Benghazi, is George W. Bush equally and personally responsible for the 9-11 Attack? Put him in the hot seat and interrogate him.

I'm pretty sure he is not running for president. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Peace&Freedom]

the effing republicans are such a pathetic bunch of idiots here. did anyone of those assclowns ask about CIA and running arms? did anyone ask why there is an embassy in some shit-town no one had ever heard of?

Ah, but all those black op considerations run deeper than a good old left/right paradigm debate, and indicts both parties for their intervening ways. So of course that's all been agreed to be kept a closed session secret. Just like the fact that most of the US personnel who were successfully evacuated from the embassy were not members of the State Dept. So which part of the government were they working for? To figure it out, all you need is a little intelligence...

[JK/SEA]

this entire mess in Libya can be distilled down to the POLICY that was implemented by Obama, and Hilliary. Thats where the focus should be. The resulting 'troubles' that followed are a direct result of that incompetence, and apparently hilliary be rewarded with a nomination on the blood of Stevens, and his co-horts.

[jmdrake]

I usually feel pretty educated on the issues, but when I seek out info on this, I'll either find an hour long Sean Hannity rant about how people died but nothing substantial about what Hillary did. Liberal hosts say she did nothing wrong but they'd say that if there was a video of her shooting the ambassador in the head herself. Digging hasn't given me much info. Could someone summarize or point out a decent read, please?

What is her supposed crime, negligence, something nefarious, stupidity?

What hard evidence do they have to continue to investigate?

What are they looking for in the investigation?

What separates the death of these 4 men from all the thousands of other deaths in this recent War on Terra, including Afghanistan and Iraq?

Is this just a diversion from something bigger?

Thanks.

There is something bigger. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama teamed up with Al Qaeda to take out a leader that had made peace with the U.S. That's actually treason.

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

With regards to Benghazi itself, the ambassador asked for military help for months before the attack. Hillary denied the request. Dumbass democrats say "Well republicans cut funding for embassy security." Then the mission should have been scrapped and the embassy closed!

Here is the complete Benghazi timeline.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/the_complete_benghazi_timeline_in_spreadsheet_form at.html

Important dates to remember:

3/28/2012 - The ambassador requests additional security.
4/6/2012 - IED thrown over wall by terrorists.
4/19/2012 - Clinton sent a signed letter to ambassador rejecting additional security and suggesting a "pared down plan".

At this point she should have pulled the ambassador and closed the embassy!

9/11/2012 - The attack happens 5 to 6 months after Clinton had ample notice that she should have either increased security or pulled the ambassador!

Note that the DOD had unmanned surveillance drones overhead. A couple of freaking predator drones could have turned the tide in favor of the Americans!

There is something else bigger. Why was the ambassador there? According to investigative report Seymour Hersh, ambassador Stevens was part of a "rat line" to secretly transfer weapons to Syrian jihadists intent on overthrowing Assad.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

Through this program terrorists have gotten their hands on surface to air missiles. Rand Paul pointed this out. The fake "truth" site Politicfact tried to call him a liar on this, but they had to admit this:

Though the evidence overwhelmingly is against Paul, one line in the U.N. report threw us a curveball: "Panel sources stated that thousands of MANPADS were still available in arsenals controlled by a wide array of non-state actors with tenuous or non-existent links to Libyan national authorities."

If thousands of MANPADS are still in the hands of "non-state actors," could that mean thousands are available to terrorists? Not likely, Binnie said. While Libya has some radical Islamic non-state actors, the county also has numerous local tribes and militias (who aren’t terrorists) that formed during the uprisings who likely stockpiled MANPADS.

Okay. So we should take comfort in the "fact" that these "non-state actors" have not formally been labelled terrorists? Spin on Politifact.

"While Ansar al-Sharia and other radical groups affiliated to the Islamic State are operating in Libya, they remain very much a minority," Binnie said.

Minority != impotent. Note this "minority" group managed to fly their Al Qaeda flag over the Benghazi courthouse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html

Keep spinning Politifact.

It’s also worth noting that there have been no documented instances of a shootdown using Libyan MANPADS since the 2011 conflict, said Karim Mezran, senior fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

"The Islamist groups have been bombed from the air daily in the last six months," Mezran said. "If they have thousands (of MANPADS) why haven't they used them so far?"

Umm....maybe because these terrorists don't want to bite the hand that feeds them? Keep spinning Politifact.

"The Islamist groups have been bombed from the air daily in the last six months," Mezran said. "If they have thousands (of MANPADS) why haven't they used them so far?"

Because the bombing was clearly ineffective? Because sometimes the planes flying overhead were dropping them re-supplies like food and ammunition? "Accidentally" of course.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/10/21/u-s-accidentally-delivered-weapons-to-the-islamic-state-by-airdrop-militants-allege/
http://www.sott.net/article/291028-US-continues-to-airdrop-weapons-and-aid-to-ISIS-a-group-they-re-allegedly-fighting
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/us-syria-rebels-ammunition-airdrop-isis-assad-regime

On top of all of this, John "Madman" McCain is openly calling for giving surface to air missiles to jihadists to shoot down Russian aircraft.

http://www.infowars.com/mccain-arm-syrian-rebels-to-shoot-down-russian-planes/

So yes. There is something much bigger. And it's all tied to Benghazi.

[jmdrake]

the effing republicans are such a pathetic bunch of idiots here. did anyone of those assclowns ask about CIA and running arms? did anyone ask why there is an embassy in some shit-town no one had ever heard of? did one of these bumblefucks express any concern over what the hell we were doing overthrowing Gadhafi?http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M531017fe9a0f110db38e2b9c849455e3o0&pid=15.1

fucking cowards.


^This


I quizzed a couple of coworkers today - what's the capital of Libya? Benghazi?

LOL. That's the problem. Most Americans are clueless about anything but professional sports, movie/tv stars, and the music industry. Oh and I forgot "reality TV" though that fits under TV stars. Oh and there's videogames too. So many distractions.

[jmdrake]

Okay, if Hillary is responsible for Benghazi, is George W. Bush equally and personally responsible for the 9-11 Attack? Put him in the hot seat and interrogate him.

Donald Trump recently put georgie boy on the hot seat. While I don't want a president Trump, he might actually do a real investigation of 9/11.

[H. E. Panqui]

:rolleyes:

...all you have to know is that if the sec. of state had a stinking 'r' after their name instead of a 'd' the same stinking republicans now foaming at the mouth with accusations would be foaming at the mouth with apologies...and vice versa with the stinking democrats...

...stinking...republicrats...all...:mad:

[klamath]

Well the guy who was killed was against having security detail, or wanted it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220153/Christopher-Stevens-Ambassador-pleaded-extra-security-Libya-hours-killed.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-stevens-declined-security-091406

She is blamed for the attack in Benghazi. She should be blamed for setting Libya on fire and then spreading it to Syria, leaving death, chaos, and destruction along the way. Libya is her personal crowning achievement in nihilistic destruction of another country.This is exactly what I mean about getting her on the wrong charges.

[jmdrake]

This is exactly what I mean about getting her on the wrong charges.[/B]

Yeah. Well in a lot of cases what gets em is the coverup. Sure, working to overthrow a government that had made peace with the U.S. and dealing with people linked to terrorists to do it is bad. But illegal? It should be. The courts would say "That's a political question" as in "Congress should impeach and remove Obama if they are really mad about it", which is impossible because the two thirds vote needed for removal are not there. So...go for the coverup, which is illegal whether Congress has the votes to impeach or not.

[Ronin Truth]

Hillary 1, CONgresscritters 0 :rolleyes:

[Lucille]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/rating-the-benghazi-show/


It’s actually the perfect Republican issue: pro-war, partisan, but never threatening the regime with a truth that might undermine its hold on people’s minds.

One truth the GOP won’t tell: the ambassador to Hillary-throttled Libya and his cohorts were government gun runners who tried to use their official positions for cover, in effect telling Islamist terrorists, hey, you can’t kill us! We’re diplomatically immune! The US operatives were buying weapons that had belonged to the late anti-Islamicist Gaddafi regime and shipping them, via Islamcist Turkey, to US-sponsored Islamicist terrorists in Syria, to destroy the anti-Islamicist Assad regime. A very dark business in imperial trouble-making that the GOP loves as much as the Dems.

[Lucille]

Hillary Clinton Knew All Along Benghazi Attack Had "Nothing To Do With The Film," Documents Reveal
What difference at this point does it make? If you value free speech, a lot.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/22/hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-video


According to documents revealed as part of the ongoing Congressional hearings on Benghazi, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil in a phone call the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest."

The film Clinton refers to is the 10 minute Youtube trailer for the ultra-low budget anti-Islam movie "Innocence of Muslims," which she and other senior Obama administration officials, including President Obama himself, almost immediately began casting as a scapegoat for the attacks. Those attacks, however, were already understood by senior administration officials to be a planned and coordinated attack, and very much not what then-ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice called a "a spontaneous reaction to a video."
[...]
Not only did senior administration officials persist in framing the attack as a protest sparked by the video for days after, one of its first moves upon hearing that Ambassador Chris Stevens had been murdered was to contact Youtube and ask them "to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use."

My colleague Matt Welch wrote up this helpful and infuriating roundup of the administration officials and distinguished members of the intelligentsia who advocated for everything from imprisonment for the filmmaker (who would be imprisoned for a parole violation committed when he uploaded the video) to calls for "free speech to yield to other values."

[Uriel999]

"She didn't answer the 3 A.M. phone call." - Rand Paul

Does anyone truly believe that no forces were available to counter-strike this attack? In a region where we rule the skies with drones. Does anyone believe that calls from the division head for increased security went unanswered? Does anyone still believe that the situation was caused by a video? That's the official White House version. Or do others even remember that?

We had forces available. My unit was on a ship off the coast. We were stood up to go in, frog uniforms on, gear staged, ammo was issued, guns where in hand. We where ready to go, but got stood down.

[klamath]

We had forces available. My unit was on a ship off the coast. We were stood up to go in, frog uniforms on, gear staged, ammo was issued, guns where in hand. We where ready to go, but got stood down. Interesting. Did you have the aviation assets to deploy to the embassy? I hear liberals say there were no assets within striking distance and I have been real skeptical of that.

[Uriel999]

Interesting. Did you have the aviation assets to deploy to the embassy? I hear liberals say there were no assets within striking distance and I have been real skeptical of that.

Yes, we would have flown in on CH-53 helicopters. I believe we had 3 on the deck of our ship at that time.

We had the resources. There was military politics at play as well because we didn't fall under Africom but rather centcom and didn't want to give us up. It was stupid though, we should have gone in, we were there!

[pcosmar]

IT was not an Embassy.. it never was.

It was a Spook (CIA) house.

Now,, go from there

[timosman]

IT was not an Embassy.. it never was.

It was a Spook (CIA) house.

Now,, go from there

http://www.shiftfrequency.com/jim-stone-slogging-through-the-pit-of-lies/

[Dary]

Is Judicial Watch reputable?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/

[klamath]

Yes, we would have flown in on CH-53 helicopters. I believe we had 3 on the deck of our ship at that time.

We had the resources. There was military politics at play as well because we didn't fall under Africom but rather centcom and didn't want to give us up. It was stupid though, we should have gone in, we were there!I know the feeling. An order from the WH would have solved the conflict between Africom and Centcom, however as that is where the launch order would have had to come from.

[navy-vet]

Apparently requests for security were made and denied.

Hillary said she wasn't aware of those requests.

Hillary said ambassador Stevens knew how to contact her directly and apparently he didn't? (Something seems odd here). Apparently important emails never reached Hillary.

Team Hillary blamed an "internet video" for weeks as the catalyst for the attack.

Apparently the day of and after (Hillary sent an email to Chelsea saying as much)... that the attack was not a result of the internet video.

And Hillary should be immediately disqualified from office because she is clearly incompetent. She was in charge, and security failed, it's on her.

The "internet video" excuse in my opinion was clearly a coverup to protect Obama with the election around the corner.
Now that's the first intelligent comment I have heard in here about this. Outstanding analysis.

[navy-vet]

There have been more intelligent comments since that post in here I am pleased to say :)

[dillo]

Why was the ambassador in Benghazi with the cia? Is that common, I would think you would want your ambassador removed from stuff like that

[navy-vet]

Ambassadors answer to the Secretary of State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State) and serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. If they are ordered to attend to a matter, they do it, or they are relieved.
Stevens may have been ordered to Benghazi simply to provide a distraction to an entity in Tripoli or something....

[fr33]

Why are Republicans such fools. The consensus seems to be that this hearing was a failure for them and a win for Hillary. There are so many questions they could have asked about what was happening in Benghazi before the attack but they didn't ask them.

[PaulConventionWV]

To be completely honest, I don't even know what the entire ordeal was about. What even happened?

[fr33]

To be completely honest, I don't even know what the entire ordeal was about. What even happened?

The CIA had a piece of property in Benghazi operating out of for their weapons smuggling ops to Syria. They likely were using it to temporarily store Libyan prisoners. The US ambassador was involved since he was at that location. Locals got pissed about itl and blowback ensued. A few federal agents got their comeuppance. The Obama Admin (Secretary of State Clinton included) tried to say it was because of an anti islamic youtube. The media, while covering up about what happened, lied and said there was an embassy in Benghazi, while the actual embassy was in Tripoli (our embassy was always in Tripoli). Republicans never acknowledged publicly what happened and instead relied upon the same old "because Obama" for the hearing and accomplished nothing.

[LibForestPaul]

I think the real question is, why didn't we just carpet bomb everything within a 20 square mile area surrounding the embassy. Or at least find some scapegoats and string up their disembowled remains outside the building.

Mankind has an 8000 year record of what works and what doesn't when it comes to running empires. If we're gonna do this thing, I wish to hell they would just stop phoning it in.

Because americans are class A pussies.

[PaulConventionWV]

The CIA had a piece of property in Benghazi operating out of for their weapons smuggling ops to Syria. They likely were using it to temporarily store Libyan prisoners. The US ambassador was involved since he was at that location. Locals got pissed about itl and blowback ensued. A few federal agents got their comeuppance. The Obama Admin (Secretary of State Clinton included) tried to say it was because of an anti islamic youtube. The media, while covering up about what happened, lied and said there was an embassy in Benghazi, while the actual embassy was in Tripoli (our embassy was always in Tripoli). Republicans never acknowledged publicly what happened and instead relied upon the same old "because Obama" for the hearing and accomplished nothing.

I'm still not exactly clear on what the location of the embassy had to do with it or what Clinton's role was.

[fr33]

I'm still not exactly clear on what the location of the embassy had to do with it or what Clinton's role was.

Her role was to protect those assets. That was her job and she failed at it. There are reasons she failed (like covering up for the CIA), but Republicans did not focus on it.

[Ender]

The CIA had a piece of property in Benghazi operating out of for their weapons smuggling ops to Syria. They likely were using it to temporarily store Libyan prisoners. The US ambassador was involved since he was at that location. Locals got pissed about itl and blowback ensued. A few federal agents got their comeuppance. The Obama Admin (Secretary of State Clinton included) tried to say it was because of an anti islamic youtube. The media, while covering up about what happened, lied and said there was an embassy in Benghazi, while the actual embassy was in Tripoli (our embassy was always in Tripoli). Republicans never acknowledged publicly what happened and instead relied upon the same old "because Obama" for the hearing and accomplished nothing.

THIS.

[vita3]

Ultimate example of failed intervention w/ US foreign policy. This time we got deadly blowback from crazed Libyan Jihadists. (6th grader could predict this)

Doopey & "controlled" Republicans can't point this out, after 4 hearings..

[Todd]

Okay, if Hillary is responsible for Benghazi, is George W. Bush equally and personally responsible for the 9-11 Attack? Put him in the hot seat and interrogate him.

Theres an old Army guideline for Commissioned officer behavior. it states that they are to "profer no excuses" because the Army is about results. If you don't achieve results you are no good to the Army.

Why should Bush be allowed to profer them when he was Commander in Chief over ALL of the Army?

Why should Hillary be allowed to do so either when she is seeking to be Commander in Chief?

One rule for me but not for thee?


She was in charge. Whether she was unaware of just plain incompetent, she should have been relieved and not even be eligible to seek higher office.

[TheCount]

Her role was to protect those assets. That was her job and she failed at it. There are reasons she failed (like covering up for the CIA), but Republicans did not focus on it.

If he wasn't at the embassy, then... that wasn't a State Department asset. If he was, then yes. You can't have it both ways.

[ARealConservative]

basically, this event should of harmed Obama in the past election, but it didn't.

that made the GOP very mad. They still want to make political hay out of this tragedy - and are finding more success this time around

[Pauls' Revere]

You are not supposed to have a clue. Just more of the usual D.C., smoke and mirrors and spin and BS. :p

^this

[Pauls' Revere]

From Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

The 2012 Benghazi attack took place on the evening of September 11, 2012, when Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.[7] Stevens was the first U.S. Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.[8] The attack has also been referred to as the Battle of Benghazi.[9]

Several hours later, a second assault targeted a different compound about one mile away, killing two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.[10][11] Ten others were also injured in the attacks.

Many Libyans condemned the attacks and praised the late ambassador. They staged public demonstrations condemning the militias (formed during the civil war to oppose leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi),[12][13][14] which were suspected of the attacks.

The United States immediately increased security worldwide at diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the Benghazi attack.[15][16] In the aftermath of the attack, State Department officials were criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses.[17]

On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[18] Khattala has been described by Libyan and U.S. officials as the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia, which was listed in January 2014 by the U.S. Department of State as a terror organization.[19][20][21] On the weekend of June 14, 2014, U.S. Army special operations forces, in coordination with the FBI, captured Khattala in Libya.[22]

Initially, it was reported by the media the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated;[24] though captured suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala stated that the assault was in retaliation for the video.[25]

"Diplomatic Compound" = whatever that means.

[fr33]

If he wasn't at the embassy, then... that wasn't a State Department asset. If he was, then yes. You can't have it both ways.

Somebody from either party should have totally brought that up during the hearing, but they didn't.

[jmdrake]

If he wasn't at the embassy, then... that wasn't a State Department asset. If he was, then yes. You can't have it both ways.

You understand that the government considers people assets right? So an ambassador is an "asset" whether he was at an embassy or not. Good grief you come up with some lame arguments....like always.

[TheCount]

Somebody from either party should have totally brought that up during the hearing, but they didn't.

That's because the purpose of the investigation and committee - both parties - is Hillary. This is the eighth investigation. They've all come to the same conclusions. Did you see any of the others on the news? Any media reporting at all?

[navy-vet]

You understand that the government considers people assets right? So an ambassador is an "asset" whether he was at an embassy or not. Good grief you come up with some lame arguments....like always.
touche'

[presence]

Is this just a diversion from something bigger?

Thanks.


POINT 1)
Benghazi was the bodega the US was using to smuggle guns via the CIA from anti Ghadaffi to anti Assad terrorists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html

POINT 2)
There were repeated documented requests for more security at the "embassy"; aka black weapons transfer station.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/19/ron-johnson/hillary-clintons-state-department-reduced-security/


Therefore:


"The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms. It had no real political role."


The desire of Hillary Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)'s State Department to maintain a low profile in Benghazi has been cited as the reason why the State Department circumvented their own Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards for diplomatic security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack



and that's about all there is to it.


...well there's some more info on the Ambassador here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder

[devil21]

In addition to other's comments, it's easy to then take a very educated guess that after the Benghazi debacle (stand down ordered because dead men tell no tales) and the sarin gas false flag (blamed on Assad but actually used by the "rebels") failed to win support for Syria intervention, 'ISIS' was birthed to take another crack at the Assad problem.


That's because the purpose of the investigation and committee - both parties - is Hillary. This is the eighth investigation. They've all come to the same conclusions. Did you see any of the others on the news? Any media reporting at all?

The absurdity of expecting the Republican Congress to do anything of substance is obvious. The neocons of the GOP were as supportive of the mission as the neocons of the Democrats. Who really thinks McCain (remember his pics with the FSA?) and Hillary are on opposite sides of this issue? lol

eta: Gowdy stumped for Jeb today.

[heavenlyboy34]

Theres an old Army guideline for Commissioned officer behavior. it states that they are to "profer no excuses" because the Army is about results. If you don't achieve results you are no good to the Army.

Why should Bush be allowed to profer them when he was Commander in Chief over ALL of the Army?

Why should Hillary be allowed to do so either when she is seeking to be Commander in Chief?

One rule for me but not for thee?


She was in charge. Whether she was unaware of just plain incompetent, she should have been relieved and not even be eligible to seek higher office.

There is no competence clause in Article II or anywhere else in teh CONstitution. Another epic Federalist fail.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZytEUCXu4

[RandPaul4Prez]

Though technically Libya wasn't a country anymore at that point, thanks to Hillary. That is the real story, which is being completely obstructed by this stupid Benghazi crap. Hillary was the architect of the Libyan war which turned Libya in to a failed state run by regional warlords and allowed for the exportation of tons of weapons and munitions which would form the arsenal of what eventually would become ISIS. The CIA was using Libya as a staging ground to ship weapons to Syria, and it was while performing that duty that the Ambassador got killed.


Yep, this is the underlying reason, and I personally think that knowing what I know about Hillary Rotten Clinton, the ambassador was probably killed on purpose for knowing too much or whistleblowing. The clintons love to kill off anybody that is not in agreement with their corrupt ways.

[RandPaul4Prez]

And while this is a damaging ordeal for Hillary, Rand is right on track with starting to discuss the role of Hillarys corrupt deals while SOS, and the role Bill and their phony Clinton "charity" foundation had with those deals. FFS, she pimped out arms deals with foreign countries in order to turn a buck for her foundation. Nobody else is even mentioning this at the current time.

[TheCount]

The absurdity of expecting the Republican Congress to do anything of substance is obvious. The neocons of the GOP were as supportive of the mission as the neocons of the Democrats. Who really thinks McCain (remember his pics with the FSA?) and Hillary are on opposite sides of this issue?

Exactly. They fundamentally agree with what the government was doing in Benghazi, and are trying to nail Hillary on mismanagement of the details because it's politically convenient for them. At no point will there be a discussion of "should we have been there in the first place?"

[buck000]

NPR had a little blurb (http://www.npr.org/2015/10/21/450611730/democrats-accuse-benghazi-committee-of-political-intentions) that caught my ear last week:



WELNA: Well, none of them found any criminal wrongdoing. But several did fault the State Department as well as the intelligence agencies for inadequate security at the Benghazi diplomatic compound which was, in fact, mainly a CIA operation center.


But, of course, there's zero curiosity on NPR's part about what "mainly a CIA operation center" means, as both lefties and righties are A-OK with CIA ops around the world, apparently.

Political theater.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

the effing republicans are such a pathetic bunch of idiots here. did anyone of those assclowns ask about CIA and running arms?

Congressman Pompeo spent about 40 seconds on it. He asked two questions about whether there was arms trafficking going on. Hillary gave a one-word answer, "No" both times. And that was it. No follow-up.