Obama, Clinton blew Benghazi response: Republican report

[George Gervin's Afro]

House Republicans have concluded that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies bear no blame for failing to halt the terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, releasing a report Tuesday that said President Obama and the State Department set up the military for failure.

The report also found that plenty of intelligence presaged the attack, but the White House and State Department — including the secretary at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton — failed to heed the warnings.

In the most damning conclusion, House Republicans said Mr. Obama’s team lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation.

“This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks,” the GOP investigation concluded in its 46-page report.

The White House dismissed the report as a rehash of questions the administration has answered, and said it has provided extraordinary cooperation.

The report was released after rank-and-file Republicans feared the pressure to get answers on the Benghazi attacks was subsiding.

Some House Republicans want to create a Watergate-style special committee to investigate the attacks, but leaders have resisted, saying the existing investigative, defense, foreign affairs, intelligence and judiciary committees can handle it. Tuesday’s interim report is the result.

The report also could dog Mrs. Clinton if she returns to politics.

The Sept. 11 attacks on the consulate in Benghazi left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

The GOP report said the White House was responsible for prohibiting the mention of terrorism, and the report said administration officials were trying to shield themselves from criticism that they had been too lax in security.

“It is clear that the State Department expressed concerns — and was backed by the White House — that the information be removed to avoid criticism for ignoring the general threat environment in Benghazi,” the report said.

Democrats on the five committees fired off a letter Tuesday saying they were left out of the report-writing entirely, and that the end result was biased.

“You are sacrificing accuracy in favor of partisanship,” the ranking Democrats on each committee said in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the report goes over old ground and that some of the conclusions conflict with the State Department’s internal review.

“The State Department’s Accountability Review Board — the independent body charged with reviewing the attacks and evaluating the interagency response — released its report which specifically found that the interagency response was ‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans,’ while also making important recommendations to improve security that we are in the process of implementing,” she said.

She said the administration has cooperated with the House committees’ efforts to investigate.

But House Republicans said the State Department’s review fell short. The GOP report said blame for lax security extended all the way to Mrs. Clinton.

The State Department didn’t comment on the report, but Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who took over for Mrs. Clinton this year, told House lawmakers last week that he would appoint a special liaison to try to dispel lingering questions. Still, he dismissed the core of the GOP’s charge.

“I don’t think anybody lied to anybody,” he said.

The Benghazi attacks played a major role in last year’s presidential campaign, with Republican nominee Mitt Romney arguing Mr. Obama was slow in recognizing it was a terrorist assault.

In a major turning point in the presidential debates, Mr. Obama retorted that he had mentioned terrorism in his first remarks on the attacks in a speech from the White House Rose Garden.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/house-gop-administration-blew-benghazi-response/#ixzz2ROcpztmC
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter




As the 9/11 Commission noted, "There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBS [Presidential Daily Briefings] from January 21 to September 11 that related to Bin Laden." In a section of the report called "The Drumbeat Begins," the Commission highlights a late June briefing that alerts to the "high probability of near-term 'spectacular' terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties … including a 'severe blow' against U.S. and Israeli 'interests' during the next two weeks." But whereas the Commission report describes the threat of attacks worldwide, Eichenwald's exclusive intel specifically cites a domestic threat, one with "dramatic consequences."

I am glad the GOP is interested in getting to the bottom of this attack...

[boutons_deux]

fuck all Repugs, they started the Iraq war, setup the military for failure, just like Viet Nam

do they really think Bishop Gecko and his neocon Dept of State would have done anything different?

[DarrinS]

So, it wasn't a spontaneous protest against the youtube video?

[DarrinS]

Sending that Rice lady out to do all the Sunday news programs was probably a mistake.

[boutons_deux]

Fox Repug Propaganda network and it's bad-faith, duped suckers here in full slander mode

Reports Undermine Fox's New Clinton Smear Over Benghazi


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/24/reports-undermine-foxs-new-clinton-smear-over-b/193750

[coyotes_geek]

:madrun FOX NEWS!!!! :madrun

[Twisted_Dawg]

fuck all Repugs, they started the Iraq war, setup the military for failure, just like Viet Nam

do they really think Bishop Gecko and his neocon Dept of State would have done anything different?

President Johnson was a Democratic President who got us into the Viet Nam War.

[boutons_deux]

President Johnson was a Democratic President who got us into the Viet Nam War.

Kennedy sent "advisors"

Nixon killed Johnson's 1968 Paris peace talks as his Prez campaign strategy and prolonged the war another 7 years.

[Big Empty]

Was Benghazi the first time Americans at an overseas embassy, or consulate killed?

[ChumpDumper]

If this is the only hope of defeating Clinton in 2016, might as well pencil her in for two terms.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If this is the only hope of defeating Clinton in 2016, might as well pencil her in for two terms.

Fox News is reporting for duty! lol

[Nbadan]

If this is the only hope of defeating Clinton in 2016, might as well pencil her in for two terms.

:lol the way things are going she may even win Texas.

She was smart to step down now and to me is a positive indicator she is Likely to run

[Spurtacular]

If this is the only hope of defeating Clinton in 2016, might as well pencil her in for two terms.

:lmao Lil chumpy was so confident back then.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao Pavlov penciling his hero in for two terms. :lmao

[Winehole23]

The Benghazi investigation(s) are completely moot in 2018, saving minds in which HRC lives rent free. They were barely credible in their own time.

Went on for 3 1/2 years. Got bupkis.

[Spurtacular]

If this is the only hope of defeating Clinton in 2016, might as well pencil her in for two terms.

:lmao Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343) running from this.

[Winehole23]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/17/have-republicans-really-spent-7-million-on-the-benghazi-committee/?utm_term=.5d2fbd21eee2

[ElNono]

Trey Gowdy posts around here these days, he can give you all the details about that witch hunt, tbh... heck I still remember the fake outrage from conservatives back then...

[Spurtacular]

Trey Gowdy posts around here these days, he can give you all the details about that witch hunt, tbh... heck I still remember the fake outrage from conservatives back then...

You're a partisan hack if you 'believe' it was fake outrage.

[ElNono]

You're a partisan hack if you believe it was fake outrage.

You can label me whatever you want. I can understand the initial outrage, but after 2+ years and she being cleared of any wrongdoing, the parading through the Republican committee was a pretty costly and largely fake political spectacle.

I don't like Hillary one bit, but you gotta call a spade a spade.

[ElNono]

I mean if we're being sincere, who was the last potential Republican candidate paraded and investigated for 3+ years by a Democratic Congress for work he/she did in an administration? I can't think of one.

I would certainly be just as annoyed if that'd be the case. It's doubly-insulting that the same guys that talk about balanced budgets, cutting government spending, etc, spend ridiculous amounts of time and money on a political stunt for years.

They very likely spent more time on that panel than actually getting us a passable healthcare legislation to replace Barrycare. It's inexcusable at some point.

[Spurtacular]

You can label me whatever you want. I can understand the initial outrage, but after 2+ years and she being cleared of any wrongdoing, the parading through the Republican committee was a pretty costly and largely fake political spectacle.

I don't like Hillary one bit, but you gotta call a spade a spade.

Political maneuvering is a side issue. People were legit upset about:

1. Americans left stranded to die.
2. Fake blaming of a coordinated terrorist attack as a spontaneous demonstration to a video.
3. The coverup.

I could list more; but in the interest of keeping it simple. It's nothing but a Democrat talking point to call it politicization. Two years doesn't mean a thing to it.

[Spurtacular]

I mean if we're being sincere, who was the last potential Republican candidate paraded and investigated for 3+ years by a Democratic Congress for work he/she did in an administration? I can't think of one.


The only comparable event for such a thing to happen, imo would be the first 9/11. And you either believe some of the conspiracies that many were implicated and that such an inquiry wasn't going to happen, or you don't believe there was someone who played the neglectful role that Hillary did.

Also, if you know that someone is gunning for the highest office in the land and is on an inside track, then you're right to deliver high scrutiny, especially as warranted in the first place. Hillary's not the victim of a political witch hunt. Not at all.

[ElNono]

Political maneuvering is a side issue. People were legit upset about:

1. Americans left stranded to die.
2. Fake blaming of a coordinated terrorist attack as a spontaneous demonstration to a video.
3. The coverup.

I could list more; but in the interest of keeping it simple. It's nothing but a Democrat talking point to call it politicization. Two years doesn't mean a thing to it.

If they were serious about an investigation into potential criminal charges, they would've hired a special independent counsel to carry it out. They're lawmakers, not investigators, PLUS that gives the investigation more credibility in the sense that the political motive is out the window.

The whole thing was a political parade for TV, and as usual they overdid it (it wasn't 2 years, it was 3 plus). They managed to turn a serious matter into a meme. Ridiculous.

[Spurtacular]

If they were serious about an investigation into potential criminal charges, they would've hired a special independent counsel to carry it out. They're lawmakers, not investigators, PLUS that gives the investigation more credibility in the sense that the political motive is out the window.

The whole thing was a political parade for TV, and as usual they overdid it (it wasn't 2 years, it was 3 plus). They managed to turn a serious matter into a meme. Ridiculous.

You're arguing it from a very political / govt. working side of it. Like how holy are Republicans relative to Hillary? That is basically what you're putting forth.

I'm speaking of it from an American civilian perspective. Hillary's actions were abhorrent. The government's actions as a whole were abhorrent.

[ElNono]

The only comparable event for such a thing to happen, imo would be the first 9/11. And you either believe some of the conspiracies that many were implicated and that wasn't going to happen or you don't believe there was someone who played the neglectful role that Hillary did.

Also, if you know that someone is gunning for the highest office in the land and is on an inside track, then you're right to deliver high scrutiny, especially as warranted in the first place. Hillary's not the victim of a political witch hunt. Not at all.

Nobody is taking the 'scrutiny' of an obvious partisan body, with a credibility in the single digits seriously. That's the problem. And they could've done this much more seriously and independently without turning the whole thing into a fucking internet meme. That's when you know you're not credible and you overdid it.

Fact is, a serious handling of that matter would've likely derailed Shillary candidacy, but it did nothing of the sort. The whole political parade was a complete failure, waste of time and money.

[ElNono]

I'm speaking of it from an American civilian perspective. Hillary's actions were abhorrent. The government's actions as a whole were abhorrent.

Absolutely, I don't like what she did or said one bit. But then you have the case of people that had the ability to do this right and really send her to the tree of woe, and completely fumbled it. And those are the guys I'm talking about the fake outrage.

Those guys didn't care one bit, they just wanted the photo op of them grilling her. The whole thing was disgusting.

[Spurtacular]

Nobody is taking the 'scrutiny' of an obvious partisan body, with a credibility in the single digits seriously. That's the problem. And they could've done this much more seriously and independently without turning the whole thing into a fucking internet meme. That's when you know you're not credible and you overdid it.

Fact is, a serious handling of that matter would've likely derailed Shillary candidacy, but it did nothing of the sort. The whole political parade was a complete failure, waste of time and money.

All these congressional hearings are shows designed for political fallout, not legal fallout. These politicians don't want to create precedents of having these things legally devour individuals. You know that.

[Spurtacular]

Absolutely, I don't like what she did or said one bit. But then you have the case of people that had the ability to do this right and really send her to the tree of woe, and completely fumbled it. And those are the guys I'm talking about the fake outrage.

Those guys didn't care one bit, they just wanted the photo op of them grilling her. The whole thing was disgusting.

It would have taken a mighty concerted effort from Republicans who are often a hair's difference off from Hillary's values. And it's not like they were gonna do it cos it was "the right thing to do."

[Spurtacular]

Fact is, a serious handling of that matter would've likely derailed Shillary candidacy, but it did nothing of the sort. The whole political parade was a complete failure, waste of time and money.

If done right, she would've been impeached. At a minimum, impeachment would've been a prominent priority.

And who's to say it didn't derail her candidacy? If not for the rigging, Bernie would've been the nominee.

[ElNono]

All these congressional hearings are shows designed for political fallout, not legal fallout. These politicians don't want to create precedents of having these things legally devour individuals. You know that.

That's what turned something serious into a sad spectacle. That helped Shillary, it didn't bring her down. Benghazi became a cop-out and a joke after some time. You can do Congressional hearings, etc, but when you stick it for too long, it becomes obvious it's all for show. That actually negatively affects what you're trying to do. The perception becomes that the accused becomes the victim, especially when the jury is not an independent entity.

If there would be a Dems Congress and they would be roasting Trump non-stop, you would be agreeing with me. Thankfully Mueller at least is an independent investigator.

[ElNono]

It would have taken a mighty concerted effort from Republicans who are often a hair's difference off from Hillary's values. And it's not like they were gonna do it cos it was "the right thing to do."

That's what I mean about fake outrage. Some of these Congress-critters were pretending to have the moral high ground and playing the fake outrage card in year 3, when they already fumbled it and were just playing the political game.

The emails stuff, same thing (again, not claiming there wasn't a reason to conduct the hearings, just that it was overdone to hell and back). A savvy politician also knows when you did enough damage and you need to stop.

[Spurtacular]

Absolutely, I don't like what she did or said one bit. But then you have the case of people that had the ability to do this right and really send her to the tree of woe, and completely fumbled it. And those are the guys I'm talking about the fake outrage.

Those guys didn't care one bit, they just wanted the photo op of them grilling her. The whole thing was disgusting.

Trey Gowdy, Jim Jordan, Martha Roby, Susan Brooks and some others were genuinely outraged, imo. But a couple of handfuls of congressmen wanting action is not how the government is designed to work.

[Spurtacular]

That's what turned something serious into a sad spectacle. That helped Shillary, it didn't bring her down. Benghazi became a cop-out and a joke after some time. You can do Congressional hearings, etc, but when you stick it for too long, it becomes obvious it's all for show. That actually negatively affects what you're trying to do. The perception becomes that the accused becomes the victim, especially when the jury is not an independent entity.

If there would be a Dems Congress and they would be roasting Trump non-stop, you would be agreeing with me. Thankfully Mueller at least is an independent investigator.

You've been listening to the media too much (who spun it that way). Benghazi didn't help her at all. This cast a very bad spotlight on her. If she had just done her token job straight, she was all set to be easily voted into the presidency and "make history." It saddens me that America can be that non-critical in the face of a lack of serious drama; but that is the truth.

I think "show" is a loaded word. Obviously, you know what it means to Dem hacks. But to everyone else, they have legit opinions about Benghazi regardless of the politicization.

[Spurtacular]

That's what I mean about fake outrage. Some of these Congress-critters were pretending to have the moral high ground and playing the fake outrage card in year 3, when they already fumbled it and were just playing the political game.

The emails stuff, same thing (again, not claiming there wasn't a reason to conduct the hearings, just that it was overdone to hell and back). A savvy politician also knows when you did enough damage and you need to stop.

Perhaps; but wikileaks and the FBI findings reignited that fire all the same.

[ElNono]

You've been listening to the media too much (who spun it that way). Benghazi didn't help her at all. This cast a very bad spotlight on her. If she had just done her token job straight, she was all set to be easily voted into the presidency and "make history." It saddens me that America can be that non-critical in the face of a lack of serious drama; but that is the truth.

I think "show" is a loaded word. Obviously, you know what it means to Dem hacks. But to everyone else, they have legit opinions about Benghazi regardless of the politicization.

Scapegoating to the media is the easy way out. The reality is that, as much as it pains me to say it, she was actually a fairly successful candidate. She actually convinced more people than Trump to vote for her, when the reality is that she should've been toast a long time ago.

That's real, and pathetic at the same time. And some of these people are actually responsible for that, which is what really annoys me.

[Spurtacular]

Scapegoating to the media is the easy way out. The reality is that, as much as it pains me to say it, she was actually a fairly successful candidate. She actually convinced more people than Trump to vote for her, when the reality is that she should've been toast a long time ago.

That's real, and pathetic at the same time. And some of these people are actually responsible for that, which is what really annoys me.

No scapegoating. The media is a Democrat wing. People get that; I don't know what your excuse is, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

Scapegoating to the media is the easy way out. The reality is that, as much as it pains me to say it, she was actually a fairly successful candidate. She actually convinced more people than Trump to vote for her, when the reality is that she should've been toast a long time ago.

That's real, and pathetic at the same time. And some of these people are actually responsible for that, which is what really annoys me.

I have my doubts that those numbers are real. Electronic voting is a sham, ballot box stuffing is reality in some places, illegals voting is a thing. You can't have an insecure system and expect it to not be manipulated.

It does frustrate me either way though. I do think that in most the larger cities, people were voting for Hillary by big margins, cheating aside.

[ElNono]

Nobody is saying the media is perfect, independent and unbiased. But there's ample selection if you're even inclined to look at different views on a given subject.

Also, you don't speak for 'people' and neither do I. But we know 'people' went out and gave more votes to Shillary than Trump. And I don't point this out to trash Trump (a legitimate president) or highlight Shillary. I point it out because that's what happened, is measurable and thus real.

Conspiracies are just that, meaningless rumors which carry no weight unless they're proven to be true. You have to skeptic of anything without actual evidence, and you have to also be aware of the difference between isolated cases and massive cases.

I know there's plenty of people that 'want to believe' (for whatever reason), but that doesn't make reality any less real and the alternate reality any more than fantasy.

[Pavlov]

I have my doubts that those numbers are real.lol another conspiracy

[Spurtacular]

lol another conspiracy

I don't know why that's funny. Apparently any mentions of foul play by your puppet masters triggers you though.

[Spurtacular]

Nobody is saying the media is perfect, independent and unbiased. But there's ample selection if you're even inclined to look at different views on a given subject.

Also, you don't speak for 'people' and neither do I. But we know 'people' went out and gave more votes to Shillary than Trump. And I don't point this out to trash Trump (a legitimate president) or highlight Shillary. I point it out because that's what happened, is measurable and thus real.

Conspiracies are just that, meaningless rumors which carry no weight unless they're proven to be true. You have to skeptic of anything without actual evidence, and you have to also be aware of the difference between isolated cases and massive cases.

I know there's plenty of people that 'want to believe' (for whatever reason), but that doesn't make reality any less real and the alternate reality any more than fantasy.

The media is corporate driven. Their job isn't to speak to truth; it's to sell the narratives that suits their interests.

[Pavlov]

I don't know why that's funny. Apparently any mentions of foul play by your puppet masters triggers you though.It's funny because you declare a conspiracy multiple times a day here.

Anything that doesn't correspond with your worldview just has to be the result of some nefarious plot or another.

lol derp

[koriwhat]

I don't know why that's funny. Apparently any mentions of foul play by your puppet masters triggers you though.

for as much shit as trump followers get from the left it's funny because the left is way worse about bowing down to their false idols. sad sad sad. look up to no man!


The media is corporate driven. Their job isn't to speak to truth; it's to sell the narratives that suits their interests.

exactly. first and foremost they are realityTV which means strictly entertainment and no actual news converage. fuck the MSM!

[koriwhat]

It's funny because you declare a conspiracy multiple times a day here.

Anything that doesn't correspond with your worldview just has to be the result of some nefarious plot or another.

lol derp

harping about russia after almost 2 yrs... whatup conspiracy theorist!?

[Pavlov]

for as much shit as trump followers get from the left it's funny because the left is way worse about bowing down to their false idols. sad sad sad. look up to no man!



exactly. first and foremost they are realityTV which means strictly entertainment and no actual news converage. fuck the MSM!Where do you get your news?

[koriwhat]

Where do you get your news?

not from you. where do you buy your groceries?

[Spurtacular]

It's funny because you declare a conspiracy multiple times a day here.

Anything that doesn't correspond with your worldview just has to be the result of some nefarious plot or another.

lol derp

People in positions of trust misuse their power all the time. You are continuing with your mundane outlooks.

[Pavlov]

not from you. where do you buy your groceries?HEB.

Where do you get your news?


People in positions of trust misuse their power all the time. You are continuing with your mundane outlooks.Anything that doesn't correspond with your worldview just has to be the result of some nefarious plot or another.

That's as lazy and mundane as it gets.

[koriwhat]

Where do you get your news?

where do you get your hair cut at? Yes or no!

[Pavlov]

where do you get your hair cut at? Yes or no!Just dodging and rage from you.

[koriwhat]

Just dodging and rage from you.

where do you buy all them strokes for that ego at? Yes or no!

[Pavlov]

where do you buy all them strokes for that ego at? Yes or no!Just say you're afraid to answer after you brought it up yourself.

It's not a crime.

[koriwhat]

Just say you're afraid to answer after you brought it up yourself.

It's not a crime.

Just more of the same dodging and rage posting by pavTHETIC. just admit it, you're afraid to answer after you brought it up yourself.

It's not a crime.

[Pavlov]

Just more of the same dodging and rage posting by pavTHETIC. just admit it, you're afraid to answer after you brought it up yourself.

It's not a crime.I did not bring up groceries or haircuts.

You brought up news sources.

And you're upset you got called on it.

[koriwhat]

I did not bring up groceries or haircuts.

You brought up news sources.

And you're upset you got called on it.

i'm so far from upset about anything tbh. i just want to smoke a blunt and laugh some more at you but i don't smoke during the day. however, i can still laugh at you regardless.

do you count all them ego strokes like marsha does while brushing her hair? Yes or no?

[Pavlov]

i'm so far from upset about anything tbh. i just want to smoke a blunt and laugh some more at you but i don't smoke during the day. however, i can still laugh at you regardless.

do you count all them ego strokes like marsha does while brushing her hair? Yes or no?lol all this because I simply asked you where you get your news.

[koriwhat]

lol all this because I simply asked you where you get your news.

you don't get it do you pav? idgaf what you ask of me. sometimes i'll answer you and other times i see you stroking that ego and don't care to respond to your bs line of questioning. you're pathetic and should be treated as so.

[ElNono]

The media is corporate driven. Their job isn't to speak to truth; it's to sell the narratives that suits their interests.

There’s plenty of dissenting views regardless, and there’s always facts, even if eventually they get spun one way or the other. It’s on everyone to tell fact from fiction and apply a critical mind to it, keeping in mind what’s real and what isn’t.

Plus we live at an age where anyone can have a direct channel to audience. Sure, some people use it to stir shit, but having a restricted communication channel would be much worse, IMO

[ElNono]

Making things personal never advanced any debate, tbh...

Now if you guys are trolling each other, carry on...

[koriwhat]

Making things personal never advanced any debate, tbh...

Now if you guys are trolling each other, carry on...

1st point is def true and 2nd is basically you hitting the nail on its head. :tu

[Pavlov]

you don't get it do you pav? idgaf what you ask of me.I know.

It's just fun to watch you dodge.

[pgardn]

No scapegoating. The media is a Democrat wing. People get that; I don't know what your excuse is, tbh.

So what do you read so you can avoid THE MEDIA?

[koriwhat]

I know.

It's just fun to watch you dodge.

and same with you. :tu pav