Benghazi witness: US military response could have ‘scared’ off attackers

[BobaFett1]

The U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed, a top diplomatic official who was in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 assault told congressional investigators.
The account, contained in a transcript obtained by Fox News, was given by Gregory Hicks during an interview last month with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, a whistle-blower who is preparing to testify Wednesday before that committee, was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya -- after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed that night, he became the highest-ranking diplomat on the ground.
Hicks, in his interview, argued that after the first wave of attacks on the U.S. consulate, the U.S. military could have prevented additional violence with a quickly scrambled flight -- after the first wave, terrorists would go on to launch a pre-dawn mortar assault on the CIA annex.
"And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night," Hicks said, according to the transcript.
He acknowledged that this would have required clearance from the Libyan government, since it is their airspace, but claimed the government would have approved such a flight.
This, he said, could have stopped that mortar assault.
"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split," he said. "They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them."
Hicks suggested the Libyan government expected a request to use their airspace, and claimed the Libyans "were as surprised as we were" that U.S. military personnel did not arrive until later on.
Pentagon officials have said military assets were not in position to respond fast enough that night, and also have cautioned about the potential risks of sending additional military into the area.
"There was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. "We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. ... Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response."
Panetta, during an Oct. 25 briefing with reporters, also said that while the military was prepared to respond, the "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on." He said the attack was over before "we had the opportunity to really know what was happening."
Hicks acknowledged there were concerns that the nearest fighter jets did not have the requisite tankers in the area to support a flight.
However, he said a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early that morning was told not to go.
He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12.
"We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum," he said.
But he said the military team on the ground in Tripoli got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight."
He added: "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," apparently because they did not have the "right authority."
The account is one of a series of new details and claims that are emerging about the night of the Benghazi attack in advance of congressional testimony.
Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency's counterterrorism bureau, has also claimed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making that night. He, too, is set to testify Wednesday.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will say tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday.
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.
"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."
He went on to call his bureau a "central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi." He said "at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks."
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Monday that the new hearings appear to be political in nature.
Separately, a senior State Department official told Fox News that Hicks and Thompson both have "axes to grind."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/benghazi-witness-us-military-response-could-have-scared-off-attackers-prevented/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2ScB8ODav

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

[Th'Pusher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

Kinda puts it all on perspective...

[boutons_deux]

"bad things" baby talk! :lol

"I believe the Libyans would have split" :lol

"in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying" :lol what's a "fast mover", "in your opinion"

Fox :lol still beating the Benghazi drum that failed them so wonderfully last autumn. :lol

[BobaFett1]

"bad things" baby talk! :lol

"I believe the Libyans would have split" :lol

"in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying" :lol what's a "fast mover", "in your opinion"

Fox :lol still beating the Benghazi drum that failed them so wonderfully last autumn. :lol

Boutons I guess you do not care that Hillary covered this up one bit. I expect no less from a liberal. Of course you want to sweep it under the rug. Have a nice day loser.:toast

[boutons_deux]

bobfart always suckered and duped by Fox Repug propaganda

[George Gervin's Afro]

Boutons I guess you do not care that Hillary covered this up one bit. I expect no less from a liberal. Of course you want to sweep it under the rug. Have a nice day loser.:toast

Except she didn't cover it up.. dumbass

[George Gervin's Afro]

I want to make sure that I understand what the 'whistleblowers' are going to claim.. they thought it was a terror attack during the attack... is that news?

[George Gervin's Afro]

The testimony will claim that the military 'could have' done something... how would the people on the ground know this during the attack?

[boutons_deux]

flyovers are scary? only if they shoot and bomb the attackers on the ground.

[George Gervin's Afro]

THE initial CIA talking points immediately after the episode was that the vidoe was the cause..

the only motive the GOP can muster is that Obama did not want al-qaeda mentioned because he (Obama) made claims they were on the run... anyone (who apparently doesn't live and breath Fox News) realizes Al-qaeda is never going to go away.


Romney knew there wasn't to much behind the GOP conspiracy so he stayed away.. smart thing to do

[SA210]

.
Live feed: Benghazi whistle-blowers testify at House hearing

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1155606216001/

[boutons_deux]

Repug/Fox Benghazi dead-horse-beating/fabricated-controversy is nothing but 2016 politicking to destroy Hillary.

[BobaFett1]

Repug/Fox Benghazi dead-horse-beating/fabricated-controversy is nothing but 2016 politicking to destroy Hillary.

Why did Hillary turn down extra boots for Stevens? Keep smoking the pot boutons. Typical leftist commie you are.

[BobaFett1]

bobfart always suckered and duped by Fox Repug propaganda

NO. Just want justice. Obummer too spineless to do anything.

[mouse]

ld3WPjgCtuU

[boutons_deux]

Why did Hillary turn down extra boots for Stevens? Keep smoking the pot boutons. Typical leftist commie you are.

I dunno, but according to the Repugs "We're broke" so the Repugs denied $300M in embassy security.

[George Gervin's Afro]

NO. Just want justice. Obummer too spineless to do anything.

what justice dumbass?

[BobaFett1]

what justice dumbass?

Why we did not send help jackwagon. Obummer was too worried about his image and so was Clinton. You are in some denial. Why did we have such a small security force in a bad place? You have to ask yourself these questions George Gervin's Afro. Keep asking questions duh?

Blaming it on a movie. Not. :lol

Keep toting the agenda no matter the cost.:lmao

[Winehole23]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

[BobaFett1]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7270/6983011516_bf12606201_z.jpg

[BobaFett1]

Simple questions yet to be answered.

What was the first moment anyone in the military or the Obama Regime knew the Embassy was under attack?

When was the Hillary and Obama informed?

Why was the request by (former Navy Seal) members of the Ambassadors security detail to provide assistance rejected and why was he told to stand down?

Why when this event unfolded over a 7 hour period and was watched on a live video feed, were military resources, jets, AC 130 Sprectra Gunshipss, not scrambled from Italy, when they could been on station in 80 minutes?

Why did the senior people in the Obama Regime not make a call to Libyan govt and alert them that failure to provide immediate security would be tantamount to an attack on American Sovereignty and that there would be severe consequences for inaction?

Why did the Comrad Obama fly to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser?

Where was Obama's, whereabouts in 15 minute intervals?

Why did the Obama Regime orchestrate a widespread and tightly coordinated explanation of lies, blaming a YouTube video?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why we did not send help jackwagon. Obummer was too worried about his image and so was Clinton. You are in some denial. Why did we have such a small security force in a bad place? You have to ask yourself these questions George Gervin's Afro. Keep asking questions duh?

Blaming it on a movie. Not. :lol

Keep toting the agenda no matter the cost.:lmao

lol.. so your just making stuff up... dumbass..


this will go no where and Hillary is going to make you suck on her nutsack for 8 years..

[BobaFett1]

lol.. so your just making stuff up... dumbass..


this will go no where and Hillary is going to make you suck on her nutsack for 8 years..

Simple questions yet to be answered.

What was the first moment anyone in the military or the Obama Regime knew the Embassy was under attack?

When was the Hillary and Obama informed?

Why was the request by (former Navy Seal) members of the Ambassadors security detail to provide assistance rejected and why was he told to stand down?

Why when this event unfolded over a 7 hour period and was watched on a live video feed, were military resources, jets, AC 130 Sprectra Gunshipss, not scrambled from Italy, when they could been on station in 80 minutes?

Why did the senior people in the Obama Regime not make a call to Libyan govt and alert them that failure to provide immediate security would be tantamount to an attack on American Sovereignty and that there would be severe consequences for inaction?

Why did the Comrad Obama fly to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser?

Where was Obama's, whereabouts in 15 minute intervals?

Why did the Obama Regime orchestrate a widespread and tightly coordinated explanation of lies, blaming a YouTube video?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, all of these questions have already been answered. Wherever you copied that from is uninformed.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Simple questions yet to be answered.

What was the first moment anyone in the military or the Obama Regime knew the Embassy was under attack?

When was the Hillary and Obama informed?

Why was the request by (former Navy Seal) members of the Ambassadors security detail to provide assistance rejected and why was he told to stand down?

Why when this event unfolded over a 7 hour period and was watched on a live video feed, were military resources, jets, AC 130 Sprectra Gunshipss, not scrambled from Italy, when they could been on station in 80 minutes?

Why did the senior people in the Obama Regime not make a call to Libyan govt and alert them that failure to provide immediate security would be tantamount to an attack on American Sovereignty and that there would be severe consequences for inaction?

Why did the Comrad Obama fly to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser?

Where was Obama's, whereabouts in 15 minute intervals?

Why did the Obama Regime orchestrate a widespread and tightly coordinated explanation of lies, blaming a YouTube video?


Soon after the initial reports about the attack on Benghazi, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama and he ordered all available DoD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region. It is important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sana'a, and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response.



In consultation with Chairman Dempsey and AFRICOM Commander General Ham, I directed several specific actions:

A Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoon, stationed in Spain to prepare to deploy to Benghazi;
A Second FAST platoon to prepare to deploy to the Embassy in Tripoli;
A special operations force, which was training in Central Europe, to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe; and
A special operations force based in the United States to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe.
Some have asked why other types of armed aircraft were not dispatched to Benghazi. The reason is because armed UAVs, AC-130 gunships, or fixed-wing fighters with the associated tanking, armaments, targeting and support capabilities were not in the vicinity of Libya and because of the distance, would have taken at least 9 to 12 hours if not more to deploy. This was, pure and simple, a problem of distance and time.

The quickest response option available was the Tripoli-based security team. Within hours, this six-person team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane and deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the Annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket propelled grenades. Members of this team, along with others at the Annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks began, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi.

Looking back, our actions in the immediate aftermath of these attacks have been subject to intense scrutiny and review. Let me share with you the conclusion that the Accountability Review Board reached: The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans.


I'll go with the Joint Chief of Staff's word over your stupidity..

[BobaFett1]

I'll go with the Joint Chief of Staff's word over your stupidity..

you are gulliable

[George Gervin's Afro]

you are gulliable

and you're a lying dumbass..

[ChumpDumper]

The only real question I have is why did the ambassador decide to spend the night in the much less secure Benghazi in the first place?

But, dude is dead.

[boutons_deux]

sounds like BubbaFart has been learning from Glen Beck how to connect the dots

[boutons_deux]

Right-Wing Media Myths about Benghazi


MYTH: Latest Benghazi Hearing Is Apolitical


Fox News' Brian Kilmeade Attacks The Claim That Benghazi Hearings Are "Politically Driven." On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that because self-identified whistleblowers are testifying at congressional hearings on Benghazi at a time that elections are not being held, the hearings can't be politically driven, saying "politics is out, and whistleblowers are in":


KILMEADE: [A]nyone who says this is politically driven, or it's against the president, that's out the window. Because if there's a non-political season in this world in American politics, it's now. The mid-terms aren't close --


STEVE DOOCY [co-host]: Sure.


KILMEADE: And the president is not running. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/7/13, via Media Matters]


FACT: Right-Wing Media And Congressional Republicans Have Politicized The Hearings


Fox News' John Bolton: "I Hope [Benghazi] Is A Cover Up ... If It Was Merely A Political Cover-Up Then There Can Be A Political Cost To Pay." On Your World, Fox News contributor John Bolton said he hoped the hearings found that despite all evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration had engaged in a "political cover up" by altering CIA talking points to suggest that the attacks came in response to an anti-Islam video:


BOLTON: I'd have to say for the good of the country, I hope it is a cover up rather than the alternative, which is the Obama administration was so blind to the reality of the threat of Islamic terrorism, the continued threat from Al Qaeda... If that's the problem there's no cure for it. If it was merely a political cover-up then there can be a political cost to pay. [Fox News,Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/6/13, via Media Matters]


Lawyers Representing The "Whistleblowers" In Hearings Are Long-Time GOP Activists With History Of Pushing Discredited Claims. The lawyers claiming to represent some of the witnesses at the Benghazi hearing, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, are long-time Republicans known for pushing false claims in the media and for having conflicts of interest in their professional work. They have both served as advisors to Republican candidates and donated thousands of dollars to GOP candidates and causes, and have been criticized for a conflict of interest for serving in a dual role in separate Justice Department investigations and for dropping "the air of impartiality, non-partisanship, and professionalism required" by their roles as leaders of a congressional investigation. [Media Matters, 4/30/13; 5/6/13]


Congressional Democrats Criticized House GOP Report For "Unnecessarily Politicizing Our National Security." A congressional report on Benghazi that was authored by five Republican committee chairmen was criticized by the ranking Democrats on those committees in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, in which they said the report is "unnecessarily politicizing our national security":


We are writing to strongly object to your decision to issue a partisan Republican staff report on Benghazi and dispense with House procedures for vetting official committee reports to correct inaccuracies and mischaracterizations. By abandoning regular order and excluding Democratic Members entirely from this process, you are unnecessarily politicizing our national security and casting aside the system used by the House for generations to avoid making obvious mistakes, errors, and omissions. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13, viaMedia Matters]


Oversight Committee Ranking Member Accused Republicans Of Withholding Information From Democrats. On May 6, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a statement in which he accused Republican committee members of issuing "a partisan report with reckless and false accusations" and claimed interview information was withheld from committee Democrats:


CUMMINGS: I also believe Members of Congress have an obligation to actually investigate claims before coming to conclusions and making public accusations. Unfortunately, House Republicans have taken the opposite approach. They issued a partisan report with reckless and false accusations against the former Secretary of State, they have completely concealed Mr. Thompson from Democratic Committee Members, and they have failed to make even basic inquiries to the Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, or the State Department to vet specific allegations. Instead, they have leaked snippets of interview transcripts to national media outlets in a selective and distorted manner to drum up publicity for their hearing. This is investigation by press release and does a disservice to our common goal of ensuring that our diplomatic corps serving overseas has the best protection possible to do its critical work. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13]


State Dept. Spokesman: Congressional Republicans Have Not Shared Witness Transcripts With Us, Told Us How This Hearing Was Formed. In a May 2013 State Department Press Briefing, Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell pointed out that the hearings had been convened without any interaction with the State Department:


VENTRELL: I mean, it's a little bit hard for us to - given that we don't have a lot of information about how the hearing was scheduled and the various sort of formation of the majority's decision to have this hearing, it's a little bit hard to comment on the witnesses. Let me do - let me say one thing here, though, at the very top. We have always encouraged any State Department employee who wants to share their personal story, whether it be to the ARB or the Congress to tell the truth, period, full stop, end of story. That's long been our position. We've made that clear from the start. In terms of these particular individuals, the committee didn't come to us asking witnesses. We found out through the media and through the announcement the same way you all did. In terms of these potential transcripts out there, we haven't seen the transcripts. [State.gov, 5/6/13]


MYTH: Obama Admin Stopped Rescue Team That Could Have Prevented Second Attack


Fox's Bret Baier: The Second Team Of Special Forces From Tripoli "Would Have Been There In Time For the Second Attack." On the May 6 edition of Special Report, Fox anchor Bret Baier misrepresented what former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks reportedly told congressional investigators, claiming that a team of special forces troops would have arrived in time for an attack on the CIA annex had they not been told not to go:


BAIER: Charles, in this testimony that -- we have already seen some of this interview with Greg Hicks, the number two guy, again, on the ground, he specifically says that special forces in Tripoli were told to stand down and not get on a C-130 that was going to go from Tripoli to Benghazi that would have been there in time for the second attack, the second wave. They were told to not get on that plane. [Fox News, Special Report, 5/6/13, via Media Matters, emphasis added]


FACT: Special Forces Team In Tripoli Was Not Scheduled To Leave Until After The Second Attack Began


Wash. Post's Ignatius: Mortar Assault Began At 5:15 A.M. In his description of the "detailed CIA timeline" of the events that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius noted that that the second attack of the night began at 5:15:


5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never "laser the mortars," as has been reported. They don't know they're in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded. [The Washington Post, 11/1/12]


Gregory Hicks: Tripoli Special Forces Were Scheduled To Take Off Between 6:00 And 6:30 A.M. According to transcripts of what Gregory Hicks -- one of the witnesses speaking at the hearing -- told congressional investigators in April, the Tripoli special forces were scheduled to take off after 6:00 a.m. local time, approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people:


Q: And was there a second team that was organized? Could you tell us about the second team?


A: Right. The second team -- the Defense Attache worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way. Early in the morning -- sorry, after we were formally notified by the Prime Minister, who called me, that Chris had passed, the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements. Because we at that time -- at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.


Q: So what time did the second rescue team ??


A: Well, again, they flew -- I think that flight took off sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m. [CBS News, 5/6/13]


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): Troops From Tripoli "Would Have Arrived After The Attack." Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican member of the House Oversight Committee who has actively pursued investigations into the Benghazi attacks, told The Washington Post the second force "would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base":


Chaffetz said the troops who were not allowed to travel to Benghazi would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base but may have provided first aid to wounded personnel. He noted that the order to keep them from traveling was given before the second attack. [The Washington Post, 5/6/13]


Accountability Review Board Chief Tom Pickering: "Within Those Time Frames, Nothing Could Have Been Done." On Your World, Fox News contributor James Rosen played a clip of former U.N. Ambassador Tom Pickering explaining to radio host Alan Colmes that "nothing could have been done" to save the lives of those killed in the initial attack and subsequent attacks in Benghazi:


PICKERING: Our Board felt that nothing could have been done to relieve the initial attack. Subsequent attacks took place beginning about midnight but died out within an hour and I think within those time frames, nothing could have been done. [Fox News, Your World, 5/7/13]


MYTH: A Special Forces Team Training In Croatia Could Have Rescued Embassy Workers


Special Report Hyped Anonymous Source's Claim That Force Training In Croatia Could Have Rescued Workers. Fox News' Special Report aired an interview between Fox correspondent Adam Housley and an anonymous source who claimed that special operations forces training in Croatia at the time could have prevented further loss of life in Benghazi:


HOUSLEY: The C-110 is a commanders and extremists force. In Layman's terms, a 40 man special operations force capable of rapid response and deployment, specifically, trained for incidents like the attack in Benghazi. That night, they were training in Croatia just three and a half hours away.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had the ability to load out, get on birds, and fly there at a minimum stage. C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in four to six hours from their European theater to react.


HOUSLEY: They would have been there before the second attack.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They would have been there before the second attack. They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfill out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say hey, we wouldn't have sent them there because, you know, the security was unknown situation. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 4/29/13 via Media Matters]


FACT: Croatian Force Could Not Have Arrived Until After The Attack Was Over


Accountability Review Board: "There Simply Was Not Enough Time" For "Military Assets To Have Made A Difference." The Accountability Review Board, an independent group tasked with investigating the attacks, found that the "interagency response was timely and appropriate" but that there was not enough time for "armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference":


The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. [Accountability Review Board, accessed 5/7/13]


Fox Military Analyst Keane: CIA Base Was Evacuated Before Special Operations Force Could Reach Them. On Fox & Friends, Fox News military analyst retired Gen. Jack Keane responded to guest host Eric Bolling's claim that the Obama administration "did not call on the only response team that may have been able to intervene during the attack" by pointing out that "the CIA base was evacuated prior to their arrival at Sigonella, so they were never employed":


KEANE: Here's what did happen. The national security apparatus, at the request of General Hamm, who's the commander of AFRICOM -- and he's had responsibility from a security aspect to respond to this crisis -- our national mission response force, our most classified force on the highest state of readiness, was alerted and moved from the United States to Sigonella [Naval Air Station in Italy], and they bring with them their own aircraft, their own helicopters and C-17s. Another classified special operations force was moved out of Central Europe to Sigonella as well. The fact of the matter was the CIA base was evacuated prior to their arrival at Sigonella, so they were never employed. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/2/12via Media Matters]


MYTH: Clinton Never Spoke To Obama On Night Of The Attacks


Ingraham: "We Know That The Secretary Of State Had Not A Single Conversation With The Commander In Chief." During an interview with Republican Congressman Peter King on her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham claimed "[w]e know that the Secretary of State had not a single conversation with the Commander in Chief. Not one during this attack":


INGRAHAM: We know that the Secretary of State had not a single conversation with the Commander in Chief. Not one during this attack. Not one conversation? That just seems bizarre to me. I mean that's just one point, but that's a pretty darn good question. Why?


KING: Absolutely, it's an excellent question, and to me it's one that, it's unfortunate that it even has to be asked. I mean you'd think they would have been on the phone continually.


INGRAHAM: My God. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 5/7/13]


FACT: Clinton Testified She And Obama Communicated The Evening Of The Attacks


Clinton: "I Spoke With President Obama Later In The Evening To ... Bring Him Up To Date, To Hear His Perspective." Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's January 23 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Benghazi attacks made it clear that she was continuously communicating with administration officials and the intelligence community during the evening of the attacks, including at least one conversation with the president:


CLINTON: Regarding what I was doing on September 11th, I was at the State Department all day and late into the night. At the -- during most of the day, prior to getting notice of the attack on our compound at Benghazi, we were very focused on our embassy in Cairo. That was under assault by a group of protesters.


We were assessing the security of our embassy, which is, as those of you have been there, certainly well-defensed. But there were crowds that were intent upon trying to scale the wall and, we were in close communication with our team in Cairo.


I was notified of the attack shortly after 4:00 p.m. Over the following hours, we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the inner agency, and internationally. I instructed our senior department officials and our diplomatic security personnel to consider every option, to just break down the doors of the Libyan officials to get as much security support as we possibly could, to coordinate with them.


I spoke to the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, several times. I briefed him on developments. I sought all possible support from the White House, which they quickly provided. Tom was my first call.


I spoke with our charger in Tripoli, to get situation updates.


I spoke with former CIA director Petraeus to confer and coordinate, given the presence of his facility, which, of course, was not well known, but was something that we knew and wanted to make sure we were closely lashed up together.


I talked with the then-Libyan national congress president, to press him on greater support, not only in Benghazi, but also in Tripoli.


I participated in a secure video conference of senior officials from the intelligence community, the White House, and DOD. We were going over every possible option, reviewing all that was available to us. Any actions we could take.


We were reaching out to everyone we could find, to try to get an update about ambassador Chris Stevens, also, our information specialist, Sean Smith.


So it was a constant, ongoing discussion and sets of meetings. I spoke with President Obama later in the evening, to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective. Obviously, we kept talking with everyone during the night. Early in the morning, on the 12th, I spoke with General Dempsey, again, with Tom Donilon. [CNN.com, 1/23/13, emphasis added]


MYTH: CIA Never Linked Benghazi Attack To Anti-Islam Video


Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes: "There Is No Mention Of Any 'Video' In Any Of The Many Drafts" Of CIA Talking Points. In a post on the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes claimed that the CIA talking points about the Benghazi attack made no reference to an anti-Islam YouTube video which was mentioned as a possible cause for the attacks by members of the Obama administration:


More troubling was the YouTube video. [Ambassador Susan] Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. "What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States." There is no mention of any "video" in any of the many drafts of the talking points. [The Weekly Standard, 5/13/13]


Fox's Chris Wallace: Reaction To The Anti-Islam Video "Had Never Been In Any Of The Talking Points."On the May 5 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace cited Hayes' Weekly Standard article to claim "U.N. Ambassador Rice came on this show and four other Sunday shows, never mentioned the al Qaeda extremists, which had been scrubbed from the -- from the talking points, but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday,5/5/13 via Media Matters]
FACT: Intelligence Community Believed Link Existed At The Time


CIA Talking Points Linked Attack To Protests In Cairo. The first bullet point from what The Weekly Standarddescribed as "Version 1" of the CIA talking points says that "based on currently available information," the attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo." The final version of the document made the same link:


The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. [The Weekly Standard,5/13/13 via Media Matters]


Cairo Protests Cited By CIA Talking Points Were Sparked By The Anti-Islam Video. The "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" mentioned in both versions of the CIA talking points were part of a global reaction to the anti-Islam video. A September 14 New York Times article reported "Anti-American rage that began this week over a video insult to Islam spread to nearly 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond on Friday, with violent and sometimes deadly protests." The article went on to note that protesters "had penetrated the perimeters of the American Embassies in the Tunisian and Sudanese capitals, and said that 65 embassies or consulates around the world had issued emergency messages about threats of violence." [The New York Times, 9/14/12]


http://www.alternet.org/right-wing-media-myths-about-benghazi

[BobaFett1]

Right-Wing Media Myths about Benghazi


MYTH: Latest Benghazi Hearing Is Apolitical


Fox News' Brian Kilmeade Attacks The Claim That Benghazi Hearings Are "Politically Driven." On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that because self-identified whistleblowers are testifying at congressional hearings on Benghazi at a time that elections are not being held, the hearings can't be politically driven, saying "politics is out, and whistleblowers are in":


KILMEADE: [A]nyone who says this is politically driven, or it's against the president, that's out the window. Because if there's a non-political season in this world in American politics, it's now. The mid-terms aren't close --


STEVE DOOCY [co-host]: Sure.


KILMEADE: And the president is not running. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/7/13, via Media Matters]


FACT: Right-Wing Media And Congressional Republicans Have Politicized The Hearings


Fox News' John Bolton: "I Hope [Benghazi] Is A Cover Up ... If It Was Merely A Political Cover-Up Then There Can Be A Political Cost To Pay." On Your World, Fox News contributor John Bolton said he hoped the hearings found that despite all evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration had engaged in a "political cover up" by altering CIA talking points to suggest that the attacks came in response to an anti-Islam video:


BOLTON: I'd have to say for the good of the country, I hope it is a cover up rather than the alternative, which is the Obama administration was so blind to the reality of the threat of Islamic terrorism, the continued threat from Al Qaeda... If that's the problem there's no cure for it. If it was merely a political cover-up then there can be a political cost to pay. [Fox News,Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/6/13, via Media Matters]


Lawyers Representing The "Whistleblowers" In Hearings Are Long-Time GOP Activists With History Of Pushing Discredited Claims. The lawyers claiming to represent some of the witnesses at the Benghazi hearing, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, are long-time Republicans known for pushing false claims in the media and for having conflicts of interest in their professional work. They have both served as advisors to Republican candidates and donated thousands of dollars to GOP candidates and causes, and have been criticized for a conflict of interest for serving in a dual role in separate Justice Department investigations and for dropping "the air of impartiality, non-partisanship, and professionalism required" by their roles as leaders of a congressional investigation. [Media Matters, 4/30/13; 5/6/13]


Congressional Democrats Criticized House GOP Report For "Unnecessarily Politicizing Our National Security." A congressional report on Benghazi that was authored by five Republican committee chairmen was criticized by the ranking Democrats on those committees in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, in which they said the report is "unnecessarily politicizing our national security":


We are writing to strongly object to your decision to issue a partisan Republican staff report on Benghazi and dispense with House procedures for vetting official committee reports to correct inaccuracies and mischaracterizations. By abandoning regular order and excluding Democratic Members entirely from this process, you are unnecessarily politicizing our national security and casting aside the system used by the House for generations to avoid making obvious mistakes, errors, and omissions. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13, viaMedia Matters]


Oversight Committee Ranking Member Accused Republicans Of Withholding Information From Democrats. On May 6, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a statement in which he accused Republican committee members of issuing "a partisan report with reckless and false accusations" and claimed interview information was withheld from committee Democrats:


CUMMINGS: I also believe Members of Congress have an obligation to actually investigate claims before coming to conclusions and making public accusations. Unfortunately, House Republicans have taken the opposite approach. They issued a partisan report with reckless and false accusations against the former Secretary of State, they have completely concealed Mr. Thompson from Democratic Committee Members, and they have failed to make even basic inquiries to the Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, or the State Department to vet specific allegations. Instead, they have leaked snippets of interview transcripts to national media outlets in a selective and distorted manner to drum up publicity for their hearing. This is investigation by press release and does a disservice to our common goal of ensuring that our diplomatic corps serving overseas has the best protection possible to do its critical work. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13]


State Dept. Spokesman: Congressional Republicans Have Not Shared Witness Transcripts With Us, Told Us How This Hearing Was Formed. In a May 2013 State Department Press Briefing, Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell pointed out that the hearings had been convened without any interaction with the State Department:


VENTRELL: I mean, it's a little bit hard for us to - given that we don't have a lot of information about how the hearing was scheduled and the various sort of formation of the majority's decision to have this hearing, it's a little bit hard to comment on the witnesses. Let me do - let me say one thing here, though, at the very top. We have always encouraged any State Department employee who wants to share their personal story, whether it be to the ARB or the Congress to tell the truth, period, full stop, end of story. That's long been our position. We've made that clear from the start. In terms of these particular individuals, the committee didn't come to us asking witnesses. We found out through the media and through the announcement the same way you all did. In terms of these potential transcripts out there, we haven't seen the transcripts. [State.gov, 5/6/13]


MYTH: Obama Admin Stopped Rescue Team That Could Have Prevented Second Attack


Fox's Bret Baier: The Second Team Of Special Forces From Tripoli "Would Have Been There In Time For the Second Attack." On the May 6 edition of Special Report, Fox anchor Bret Baier misrepresented what former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks reportedly told congressional investigators, claiming that a team of special forces troops would have arrived in time for an attack on the CIA annex had they not been told not to go:


BAIER: Charles, in this testimony that -- we have already seen some of this interview with Greg Hicks, the number two guy, again, on the ground, he specifically says that special forces in Tripoli were told to stand down and not get on a C-130 that was going to go from Tripoli to Benghazi that would have been there in time for the second attack, the second wave. They were told to not get on that plane. [Fox News, Special Report, 5/6/13, via Media Matters, emphasis added]


FACT: Special Forces Team In Tripoli Was Not Scheduled To Leave Until After The Second Attack Began


Wash. Post's Ignatius: Mortar Assault Began At 5:15 A.M. In his description of the "detailed CIA timeline" of the events that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius noted that that the second attack of the night began at 5:15:


5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never "laser the mortars," as has been reported. They don't know they're in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded. [The Washington Post, 11/1/12]


Gregory Hicks: Tripoli Special Forces Were Scheduled To Take Off Between 6:00 And 6:30 A.M. According to transcripts of what Gregory Hicks -- one of the witnesses speaking at the hearing -- told congressional investigators in April, the Tripoli special forces were scheduled to take off after 6:00 a.m. local time, approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people:


Q: And was there a second team that was organized? Could you tell us about the second team?


A: Right. The second team -- the Defense Attache worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way. Early in the morning -- sorry, after we were formally notified by the Prime Minister, who called me, that Chris had passed, the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements. Because we at that time -- at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.


Q: So what time did the second rescue team ??


A: Well, again, they flew -- I think that flight took off sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m. [CBS News, 5/6/13]


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): Troops From Tripoli "Would Have Arrived After The Attack." Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican member of the House Oversight Committee who has actively pursued investigations into the Benghazi attacks, told The Washington Post the second force "would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base":


Chaffetz said the troops who were not allowed to travel to Benghazi would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base but may have provided first aid to wounded personnel. He noted that the order to keep them from traveling was given before the second attack. [The Washington Post, 5/6/13]


Accountability Review Board Chief Tom Pickering: "Within Those Time Frames, Nothing Could Have Been Done." On Your World, Fox News contributor James Rosen played a clip of former U.N. Ambassador Tom Pickering explaining to radio host Alan Colmes that "nothing could have been done" to save the lives of those killed in the initial attack and subsequent attacks in Benghazi:


PICKERING: Our Board felt that nothing could have been done to relieve the initial attack. Subsequent attacks took place beginning about midnight but died out within an hour and I think within those time frames, nothing could have been done. [Fox News, Your World, 5/7/13]


MYTH: A Special Forces Team Training In Croatia Could Have Rescued Embassy Workers


Special Report Hyped Anonymous Source's Claim That Force Training In Croatia Could Have Rescued Workers. Fox News' Special Report aired an interview between Fox correspondent Adam Housley and an anonymous source who claimed that special operations forces training in Croatia at the time could have prevented further loss of life in Benghazi:


HOUSLEY: The C-110 is a commanders and extremists force. In Layman's terms, a 40 man special operations force capable of rapid response and deployment, specifically, trained for incidents like the attack in Benghazi. That night, they were training in Croatia just three and a half hours away.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had the ability to load out, get on birds, and fly there at a minimum stage. C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in four to six hours from their European theater to react.


HOUSLEY: They would have been there before the second attack.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They would have been there before the second attack. They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfill out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say hey, we wouldn't have sent them there because, you know, the security was unknown situation. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 4/29/13 via Media Matters]


FACT: Croatian Force Could Not Have Arrived Until After The Attack Was Over


Accountability Review Board: "There Simply Was Not Enough Time" For "Military Assets To Have Made A Difference." The Accountability Review Board, an independent group tasked with investigating the attacks, found that the "interagency response was timely and appropriate" but that there was not enough time for "armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference":


The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. [Accountability Review Board, accessed 5/7/13]


Fox Military Analyst Keane: CIA Base Was Evacuated Before Special Operations Force Could Reach Them. On Fox & Friends, Fox News military analyst retired Gen. Jack Keane responded to guest host Eric Bolling's claim that the Obama administration "did not call on the only response team that may have been able to intervene during the attack" by pointing out that "the CIA base was evacuated prior to their arrival at Sigonella, so they were never employed":


KEANE: Here's what did happen. The national security apparatus, at the request of General Hamm, who's the commander of AFRICOM -- and he's had responsibility from a security aspect to respond to this crisis -- our national mission response force, our most classified force on the highest state of readiness, was alerted and moved from the United States to Sigonella [Naval Air Station in Italy], and they bring with them their own aircraft, their own helicopters and C-17s. Another classified special operations force was moved out of Central Europe to Sigonella as well. The fact of the matter was the CIA base was evacuated prior to their arrival at Sigonella, so they were never employed. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/2/12via Media Matters]


MYTH: Clinton Never Spoke To Obama On Night Of The Attacks


Ingraham: "We Know That The Secretary Of State Had Not A Single Conversation With The Commander In Chief." During an interview with Republican Congressman Peter King on her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham claimed "[w]e know that the Secretary of State had not a single conversation with the Commander in Chief. Not one during this attack":


INGRAHAM: We know that the Secretary of State had not a single conversation with the Commander in Chief. Not one during this attack. Not one conversation? That just seems bizarre to me. I mean that's just one point, but that's a pretty darn good question. Why?


KING: Absolutely, it's an excellent question, and to me it's one that, it's unfortunate that it even has to be asked. I mean you'd think they would have been on the phone continually.


INGRAHAM: My God. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 5/7/13]


FACT: Clinton Testified She And Obama Communicated The Evening Of The Attacks


Clinton: "I Spoke With President Obama Later In The Evening To ... Bring Him Up To Date, To Hear His Perspective." Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's January 23 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Benghazi attacks made it clear that she was continuously communicating with administration officials and the intelligence community during the evening of the attacks, including at least one conversation with the president:


CLINTON: Regarding what I was doing on September 11th, I was at the State Department all day and late into the night. At the -- during most of the day, prior to getting notice of the attack on our compound at Benghazi, we were very focused on our embassy in Cairo. That was under assault by a group of protesters.


We were assessing the security of our embassy, which is, as those of you have been there, certainly well-defensed. But there were crowds that were intent upon trying to scale the wall and, we were in close communication with our team in Cairo.


I was notified of the attack shortly after 4:00 p.m. Over the following hours, we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the inner agency, and internationally. I instructed our senior department officials and our diplomatic security personnel to consider every option, to just break down the doors of the Libyan officials to get as much security support as we possibly could, to coordinate with them.


I spoke to the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, several times. I briefed him on developments. I sought all possible support from the White House, which they quickly provided. Tom was my first call.


I spoke with our charger in Tripoli, to get situation updates.


I spoke with former CIA director Petraeus to confer and coordinate, given the presence of his facility, which, of course, was not well known, but was something that we knew and wanted to make sure we were closely lashed up together.


I talked with the then-Libyan national congress president, to press him on greater support, not only in Benghazi, but also in Tripoli.


I participated in a secure video conference of senior officials from the intelligence community, the White House, and DOD. We were going over every possible option, reviewing all that was available to us. Any actions we could take.


We were reaching out to everyone we could find, to try to get an update about ambassador Chris Stevens, also, our information specialist, Sean Smith.


So it was a constant, ongoing discussion and sets of meetings. I spoke with President Obama later in the evening, to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective. Obviously, we kept talking with everyone during the night. Early in the morning, on the 12th, I spoke with General Dempsey, again, with Tom Donilon. [CNN.com, 1/23/13, emphasis added]


MYTH: CIA Never Linked Benghazi Attack To Anti-Islam Video


Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes: "There Is No Mention Of Any 'Video' In Any Of The Many Drafts" Of CIA Talking Points. In a post on the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes claimed that the CIA talking points about the Benghazi attack made no reference to an anti-Islam YouTube video which was mentioned as a possible cause for the attacks by members of the Obama administration:


More troubling was the YouTube video. [Ambassador Susan] Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. "What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States." There is no mention of any "video" in any of the many drafts of the talking points. [The Weekly Standard, 5/13/13]


Fox's Chris Wallace: Reaction To The Anti-Islam Video "Had Never Been In Any Of The Talking Points."On the May 5 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace cited Hayes' Weekly Standard article to claim "U.N. Ambassador Rice came on this show and four other Sunday shows, never mentioned the al Qaeda extremists, which had been scrubbed from the -- from the talking points, but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday,5/5/13 via Media Matters]
FACT: Intelligence Community Believed Link Existed At The Time


CIA Talking Points Linked Attack To Protests In Cairo. The first bullet point from what The Weekly Standarddescribed as "Version 1" of the CIA talking points says that "based on currently available information," the attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo." The final version of the document made the same link:


The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. [The Weekly Standard,5/13/13 via Media Matters]


Cairo Protests Cited By CIA Talking Points Were Sparked By The Anti-Islam Video. The "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" mentioned in both versions of the CIA talking points were part of a global reaction to the anti-Islam video. A September 14 New York Times article reported "Anti-American rage that began this week over a video insult to Islam spread to nearly 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond on Friday, with violent and sometimes deadly protests." The article went on to note that protesters "had penetrated the perimeters of the American Embassies in the Tunisian and Sudanese capitals, and said that 65 embassies or consulates around the world had issued emergency messages about threats of violence." [The New York Times, 9/14/12]


http://www.alternet.org/right-wing-media-myths-about-benghazi

:sleep

[George Gervin's Afro]

Michelle Malkin and Michelle Bauchmn are sitting the front row. Fox News is right in the middle of the story.. great job

[boutons_deux]

Fox News Invites Convicted Cover-Up Expert Oliver North To Comment On Alleged Benghazi Cover-Up (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/05/08/1982891/fox-news-invites-convicted-cover-up-expert-oliver-north-to-comment-on-alleged-benghazi-cover-up/)
On Wednesday, in a moment of rich irony, Fox News invited Oliver North, a military official who was convicted of covering up the government’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal, to discuss the Obama administration’s alleged cover-up of the Sep. 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. North joined host Megyn Kelly to analyze the House Oversight Committee’s hearing (http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/benghazi-exposing-failure-and-recognizing-courage/) featuring three witnesses who claim that the government could have done more on the night of the attack to save American lives.


During the segment, North explained that the administration “falsified talking points provided to people who were going to speak publicly about it” in the days following the incident and manipulated the Accountability Review Board report, which came out months later, to escape political blame.

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/05/08/1982891/fox-news-invites-convicted-cover-up-expert-oliver-north-to-comment-on-alleged-benghazi-cover-up/

[boutons_deux]

Fox (Repug Propaganda Political Nework )Provides Double Airtime To GOP During Benghazi Hearing


Fox News' Megyn Kelly worried that the network's extensive live coverage of the House Oversight Committee hearings on Benghazi was providing "lopsided" airtime to questions from Democrats -- though Fox had actually devoted over twice as much airtime to Republican questions.


Three State Department officials testified (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-committee-holds-hearing-on-benghazi-attacks/2013/05/08/639da672-b7ea-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html) today before the House Oversight Committee about the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox afforded live coverage to the hearing, beginning when the three witnesses testifying, Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom, were sworn in.

For over an hour, Fox stayed live on the hearings without a single interruption. During this time, the network showed 32 minutes of Republican committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa's (CA) questions and witness responses. But when Issa yielded the floor to the ranking Democratic committee member, Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD), for his turn to question witnesses, Fox cut to commercial, breaking live footage for the first time.

Rather than immediately returning live to Cummings' questions after the commercial break, Happening Now host Jon Scott instead spoke to Fox contributor John Bolton about the hearing, while a split-screen showed the hearing and Cummings' questioning continue. In total, Fox aired only two minutes of Cummings' questions and witness responses before returning to commercial break.

Fox favored Republican questioning right from the start of the hearing, yet Kelly implied that the network's coverage had been lopsided in favor of Democrats.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-benghazi-coverage3.JPG

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/fox-provides-double-airtime-to-gop-during-bengh/193971

[BobaFett1]

Cnbc refuses to cover story because they are so in the tank for Obama.

[BobaFett1]

Fox (Repug Propaganda Political Nework )Provides Double Airtime To GOP During Benghazi Hearing


Fox News' Megyn Kelly worried that the network's extensive live coverage of the House Oversight Committee hearings on Benghazi was providing "lopsided" airtime to questions from Democrats -- though Fox had actually devoted over twice as much airtime to Republican questions.


Three State Department officials testified (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-committee-holds-hearing-on-benghazi-attacks/2013/05/08/639da672-b7ea-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html) today before the House Oversight Committee about the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox afforded live coverage to the hearing, beginning when the three witnesses testifying, Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom, were sworn in.

For over an hour, Fox stayed live on the hearings without a single interruption. During this time, the network showed 32 minutes of Republican committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa's (CA) questions and witness responses. But when Issa yielded the floor to the ranking Democratic committee member, Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD), for his turn to question witnesses, Fox cut to commercial, breaking live footage for the first time.

Rather than immediately returning live to Cummings' questions after the commercial break, Happening Now host Jon Scott instead spoke to Fox contributor John Bolton about the hearing, while a split-screen showed the hearing and Cummings' questioning continue. In total, Fox aired only two minutes of Cummings' questions and witness responses before returning to commercial break.

Fox favored Republican questioning right from the start of the hearing, yet Kelly implied that the network's coverage had been lopsided in favor of Democrats.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-benghazi-coverage3.JPG

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/fox-provides-double-airtime-to-gop-during-bengh/193971

You shouldn't have to be Republican or Democrat to want the truth on Benghazi. No matter what side all Americans deserve better than this.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/whistle-blowers-testify-on-benghazi-attacks/#comments#ixzz2SkMNDj8V



You shouldn't have to be Republican or Democrat to want the truth on Benghazi. No matter what side all Americans deserve better than this.

[SA210]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/253339_569608699750446_90322890_n.jpg

[Nbadan]

These Benghaziers are just like the birthers and muslimers...they don't care about no stinking facts...but the GOP is so out of touch that they don't realize that people don't care about this....there is not enough meat on the bone to 'get Clinton'.....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The GOP loves this type of shit. It's there go to political angle since the 1990's. Too bad for them that Hillary didn't re-up. There is always Eric Holder though.

If they were to go after the bureaucracy of either the state or justice departments I would applaud them. That is why I love Elizabeth Warren. She goes at the bureaucracy in the treasury and justice departments.

It's so transparent. What the GOP is interested isn't justice or policy reform. It's all about the next election cycle. The sad thing is their go to in the electorate is dying off and they still do this and try and improve their marketing. They still haven't reconciled the differences between the Norquist acolytes and the old guard neocons. All they ever do is appeal to their base and gerrymander.

[Nbadan]

If they were to go after the bureaucracy of either the state or justice departments I would applaud them. That is why I love Elizabeth Warren. She goes at the bureaucracy in the treasury and justice departments.

That right there. the GOP is more interested in a political witch hunt than to actually correct the mistakes that were made in Bengazi and hold the bottom fish in the state department and maybe even Stevens himself, more responsible

[SA210]

.

What really happened in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012? One thing's for sure the government isn't going to tell you.




[SCG News] Benghazi: What You're Not Being Told


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm62T3x1iKE

[Nbadan]

Stop it already...come with some hard facts SA210...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who watches SA210's youtubes? Anyone?

[Nbadan]

http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2013/05/050913-toon-luckovich-ed.jpg

[TSA]

These Benghaziers are just like the birthers and muslimers...they don't care about no stinking facts...but the GOP is so out of touch that they don't realize that people don't care about this....there is not enough meat on the bone to 'get Clinton'.....
I'm neither right nor left, I'd just like to see someone claimed they fucked up royally if they did. Fuck our government getting away with bullshit.

[Nbadan]

I'd just like to see someone claimed they fucked up royally if they did

I'm just not sure your ever going to make it there....unfortunately, bad policy decisions, based on the info you have at that time, not this looking-back shit, is not negligence.

[ChumpDumper]

lol SCG "News"

[TSA]

I'm just not sure your ever going to make it there....unfortunately, bad policy decisions, based on the info you have at that time, not this looking-back shit, is not negligence.
Our negligence is world wide, and has been for too long. It's a long drawn out series of bad policy decisions.

[BobaFett1]

Our negligence is world wide, and has been for too long. It's a long drawn out series of bad policy decisions.

Leftist rather it be swept under the rug.

[boutons_deux]

Jon Stewart says under dubya there were 54 attacks on consulate/embassy and staff, with 13 dead, Repugs held 3 hearings, anybody remember?

one attack under Barry, and bad-faith, 2016-politicking Repugs hold 9 hearings, so far!, to smear Hillary. Repugs don't give a shit about the attack and 4 dead Americans. They are nothing but an opportunity for the Fox/Repug assholes to bad-faith politicking.

Jon Stewart Shreds Fox News, GOP Benghazi Theories: 'You Have No F*cking Idea!'

The pundits at Fox News can't understand why the media isn't outraged over the Obama administration's cover up of Benghazi. Wait, let's correct that: they can't understand why people aren't prematurely outraged IF there was a cover up.

That was the thrust of Jon Stewart's segment on the right's march to impeachment on Wednesday. Every few months, a new smoking gun is promised, and every few months the gun refuses to deliver. But it would seem Fox News would like everyone to be outraged nonetheless (especially if someone was required to run a background check before selling that non-smoking gun).

Watch Jon take apart the conservative network's full-court press on Benghazi and then show them how real outrage is done above.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/jon-stewart-shreds-fox-news-benghazi_n_3244426.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

[spursncowboys]

I'm just not sure your ever going to make it there....unfortunately, bad policy decisions, based on the info you have at that time, not this looking-back shit, is not negligence.
This isn't what is at question now. You cannot tell people they are not allowed to talk to the person investigating.

[boutons_deux]

Darrell Issa Acknowledges He Learned Nothing New From His Benghazi Hearing (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/09/1987061/issa-hearing-benghazi/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/darrell-issa-.jpg (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/darrell-issa-.jpg)Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)


House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) tacitly admitted on Wednesday that his hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks the same day didn’t turn up any new information. “I’m curious, did you learn anything new today?” Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Issa in an interview after the hearing. After meandering around for a bit, Issa finally got to the hearing’s grand revelation — Benghazi was a terror attack:

ISSA: I think the American people learned today from these brave witnesses, these whistleblowers, that the facts as we were told before during and after the attack at Benghazi simply aren’t what they really were. The acting ambassador after Ambassador Stevens was murdered, what they did told us in great detail about what happened that day and what happened in the days to follow and why we should know that he knew and everyone else in the mission new from the moment it happened, from the get-go, as he said, that this was a terrorist attack.


While indeed, former deputy chief of mission Greg Hicks’ testimony detailing his experiences as the attacks on the Benghazi diplomatic mission unfolded was new and riveting. But it didn’t have much to do with what Issa himself said the mission of the hearing would be: expose more Obama administration failures and perhaps even some kind of cover-up (of what, is unclear exactly). “Our hearing will examine new facts about what happened and significant problems with the administration’s own review of Benghazi failures,” Issa said previewing the hearing (http://issa.house.gov/press-releases/2013/04/issa-oversight-committee-to-resume-benghazi-hearings-next-month/) last month. “This committee will expose what they did and hold them accountable to the public.”

There’s “no question,” Issa said (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583149/issa-no-question-clintons-circle-involved-in-benghazi-cover-up/) two days before the hearing, that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff or even Clinton herself, was involved in a Benghazi “cover-up” (there was no cover-up of any kind, by anyone (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1983311/pickering-benghazi-cover-up-fiction/)).


However, Issa’s hearing didn’t expose anything (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/09/1985721/national-security-brief-no-new-info-benghazi-hearing/), except perhaps how fact-free (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/) a number of right-wing Benghazi conspiracy theories are, including the idea that Clinton personally signed off on cables denying additional security for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.


But as far as labeling Benghazi a terror attack, that issue has been settled long ago (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/19/obama_official_benghazi_was_a_terrorist_attack). President Obama referred to it as an “act of terror (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror)” the day after the attack and directly referred to the incident as “a terrorist attack (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/obama-administration-finally-admits-libya-attack-was-terrorism/57323/)” two weeks later. Issa probably didn’t need a hours-long hearing to get confirmation on that.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/09/1987061/issa-hearing-benghazi/

so what is the Repug accusation? cover up? of what? by whom? what's the hard evidence?

how many more hearings will the Regugs gin up? to accomplish what?

[Winehole23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[ChumpDumper]

This isn't what is at question now. You cannot tell people they are not allowed to talk to the person investigating.This is what you've been reduced to?

[mercos]

Despite all of these hearings and investigations, not a shred of incriminating evidence has been delivered. Republicans are not after the truth, they are after incriminating evidence. That is the wrong way to carry out an investigation. All that has come out is more of what we already know. Mistakes were made. Mistakes were also made in the days before 9/11, during the Afghan war, in the buildup to the Iraq war, etc etc. The investigations should have been focused on preventing future attacks on our embassies, but instead it has been one long witch hunt.

[boutons_deux]

REPUBLICANS HOLD HEARINGS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S POLL NUMBERS


Washington -- Republican lawmakers asked increasingly tough questions today as they held another day of hearings to investigate, in the words of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), “Hillary Clinton’s suspiciously high poll numbers and what can be done to make them lower.”

“With the help of Fox News, we have brutally attacked Hillary Clinton for months, and yet she remains more popular than ever,” Rep. Issa said. “This committee needs to know how that happened, and how we can keep it from happening in the future.”

Rep. Issa pointed to recent polls showing the former Secretary of State trouncing every potential G.O.P. Presidential candidate, “even a skinnier version of Chris Christie.”

“We demand an answer to one simple question,” he said. “What does Secretary Clinton know that none of us knows?”

In his boldest allegation of the day, Rep. Issa accused Secretary Clinton of “cynically using her post as Secretary of State to become wildly popular with the American people.”

“I invite her to these hearings to answer those charges,” he said.

Wrapping up for the day, Rep. Issa warned the former Secretary of State that he was just getting started: “Once we Republicans decide to investigate someone, we don’t stop. If Secretary Clinton doesn’t believe me, she should ask her husband.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/05/republicans-hold-hearings-about-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(118)

[BobaFett1]

Jon Stewart says under dubya there were 54 attacks on consulate/embassy and staff, with 13 dead, Repugs held 3 hearings, anybody remember?

one attack under Barry, and bad-faith, 2016-politicking Repugs hold 9 hearings, so far!, to smear Hillary. Repugs don't give a shit about the attack and 4 dead Americans. They are nothing but an opportunity for the Fox/Repug assholes to bad-faith politicking.

Jon Stewart Shreds Fox News, GOP Benghazi Theories: 'You Have No F*cking Idea!'

The pundits at Fox News can't understand why the media isn't outraged over the Obama administration's cover up of Benghazi. Wait, let's correct that: they can't understand why people aren't prematurely outraged IF there was a cover up.

That was the thrust of Jon Stewart's segment on the right's march to impeachment on Wednesday. Every few months, a new smoking gun is promised, and every few months the gun refuses to deliver. But it would seem Fox News would like everyone to be outraged nonetheless (especially if someone was required to run a background check before selling that non-smoking gun).

Watch Jon take apart the conservative network's full-court press on Benghazi and then show them how real outrage is done above.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/jon-stewart-shreds-fox-news-benghazi_n_3244426.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

:lol John Stewart

[ChumpDumper]

:lol BRPelican

[mouse]

Who watches SA210's youtubes? Anyone?

Psssst! There is a view count on each YouTube video.

[SA210]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/179964_10100851373582565_286208420_n.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I mean people around here. I know you do, holmes.

[Nbadan]

:lol Mike Huckabee.....


“When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern,” Huckabee said. “And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/huckabee-benghazi-will-drive-obama-from-office-90964.html?ml=po_r

[boutons_deux]

5 Biggest Republican Lies About Benghazi


Hillary Clinton Personally Signed Cables Denying Security

During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in January (http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-hillary-clinton-testifies-before-congress-on-benghazi-attack/), she vowed to have no knowledge of a request for added security at the American compound in Benghazi. Fox News (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2327462447001/did-hillary-clinton-mislead-congress-about-benghazi/) fueled Republican hysteria with an allegation that a cable denying additional security, which has yet to be seen, was in fact signed by the former Secretary.

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) asked the three witnesses during Wednesday’s hearing (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/) if this was standard protocol–all three agreed that Secretary Clinton’s signature appears at the bottom of all cables regardless if they reach her desk or not.

The Media Is Ignoring These Allegations

Fox News likes to grant itself credit with being the only news network to cover and reveal the “facts” surrounding the “Benghazi-gate” “scandal.”

On his Sunday show last October, Brit Hume lashed out against the mainstream media (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/28/hume-blasts-media-for-benghazi-coverage-fox-news-did-all-the-heavy-lifting/), “One of the problems we’re having here is that it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News, and a couple of others to do all the heaving lifting on this story. And the mainstream organizations that would be on this story like hounds if there were a Republican president have been remarkably reticent.”

The reality of this allegation is that all news networks were covering the attacks in Benghazi–Fox News is simply angry that the other networks weren’t politicizing the attack and condemning President Obama as they were. Even Fox host Geraldo Rivera had words for his friends at the network (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/28/hume-blasts-media-for-benghazi-coverage-fox-news-did-all-the-heavy-lifting/): “People, stop, I think we have to stop this politicizing. … [T]hese preposterous allegations –- reckless allegations that paint a picture of some fat bureaucrat watching TV –- I think that’s really beyond the pale.”

Fox News should have been more careful during its coverage of Wednesday’s hearing after being so quick to criticize other news outlets following the September attack. Host Megyn Kelly criticized her own network when she admitted they were a bit “lopsided” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/megyn-kelly-benghazi-fox-news-lopsided_n_3239402.html?utm_hp_ref=media) in their coverage of the hearing after cutting to commercials during Democratic questioning of the witnesses.


Obama and Clinton Watched The Attacks In Real Time

Fox News host Sean Hannity claimed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-news-and-benghazi-video-for-real/2012/11/09/79410b04-29d8-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_blog.html) in at least eight different circumstances that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama watched the Benghazi attacks in real time from the situation room. “And if the State Department is now saying they never believed that this attack on the 11th of September against the U.S. consulate was a film protest gone awry, think about it — then, it’s nearly impossible to believe that President Obama didn’t know.” Hannity said (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/23/hillary-clinton-torpedoes-hannity-there-was-no-real-time-video/).

“Oh, and did I mention the State Department was watching this unfold in real time?”

In a response to a question from Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) about this fictitious viewing party, the former Secretary stated, “There was no monitor, there was no real time.”

What seems to have caused confusion for conservatives is the difference between Clinton and Obama receiving real-time updates (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/who-started-the-benghazi-real-time-video-falseh/192380) from Benghazi, which was in fact the case, and watching real-time video.


Teams Were Prepared To Deploy But Given Orders To Stand Down

Republicans were up in arms upon learning that a Special Forces team stationed in Tripoli was ready to deploy to Benghazi during the attacks and was instead given orders to stand down.

The former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, who was one of the witnesses at the hearing on Wednesday, confirmed (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/) that the team told to stand down was never meant to deploy to the site of the attack. Instead, they were intended “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also stated that another team was deployed before this specific one was told to stand down — the first did in fact report to Benghazi and all officials were taken to Tripoli with 18 hours of the attack.


Accountability Review Board Is Part Of The Cover-Up And Their Report Can’t Be Trusted

After the September 11 attacks in Libya, the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (http://www.state.gov/arbreport/) was prompted to review the handling of the attacks by officials. Republicans clearly not pleased with the fact that the report didn’t condemn President Obama and former Secretary Clinton decided it wasn’t credible and launched their own investigation.

The result was a congressional report (http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf) aimed at Republicans, which criticizes the administration for failing on just about every level — failing to acknowledge the need for heightened security at foreign consulates on the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, failing to realize that Benghazi would be a site for post-Gadhafi demonstrations, and the administration’s attempts to mislead the American people with flawed information. The report states (http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf), “In sum, the events in Benghazi thus reflect this administration’s lack of a comprehensive national security strategy or effective defense posture in the region…Congress must maintain pressure on the administration to ensure that the United States takes all necessary steps to find the Benghazi attackers.”

Unfortunately for House Republicans looking for outside approval for their ?report during Wednesday’s hearings, not only did the witnesses not come to their defense, but also weren’t overly critical of the ARB report. Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya said (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/) of the ARB report, “I had an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-biggest-republican-lies-about-benghazi/

[boutons_deux]

:lol Mike Huckabee.....



http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/huckabee-benghazi-will-drive-obama-from-office-90964.html?ml=po_r

A "Christian" preacher man (already an ignorant, lying fuck) plus Roger Ailes' $$$ = guaranteed lying, slanderish bullshit.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Does anyone care about the missing wmds and 5,000 dead GIs? Does anyone want to get to the bottom of all of the miesleading statements prior and after the invasion?

hello?


hello?

when you guys want to get to the bottom of that let me know.. in the meantime you have zero credibility with this political with hunt..

I'm tired of you partisan pussies.

[BobaFett1]

Does anyone care about the missing wmds and 5,000 dead GIs? Does anyone want to get to the bottom of all of the miesleading statements prior and after the invasion?

hello?


hello?

when you guys want to get to the bottom of that let me know.. in the meantime you have zero credibility with this political with hunt..

I'm tired of you partisan pussies.



Stay on subject. I know it is hard for you to do.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Stay on subject. I know it is hard for you to do.

not surprising that 4 deaths > 5,000 deaths...

[boutons_deux]

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs9/9645-elizabeth-warren-050913.jpg

the art of manipulation is used by the media to distract people from events of actual importance.

It was cited regularly when the GOP had their Clinton witch hunt.

The GOP’s latest witch hunt over Benghazi is simply more wagging of the dog.

Fox News is trying really, really hard (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/the-fox-news-campaign-to-tie-benghazi-to-waterg/193966) to make it into Obama’s Watergate to keep us all distracted from some incredibly populist moves in the Senate.

Elizabeth Warren’s first official bill (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-elizabeth-warren-student-loan-interest-banks-20130508,0,3954620.story) of the 113th Congress, the Bank on Student Loan Fairness Act, is her first big salvo against the Wall Street and Federal Reserve banking cartel that controls our government. She’s made headlines (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/11/1855561/elizabeth-warren-tears-into-federal-regulators-for-shielding-big-banks/) during banking committee hearings, where she’s exposed the fact that the government's Wall Street regulators are simply tools used by Wall Street to pilfer more money from the people. She turned heads when calling for a $22 an hour minimum wage (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/26/why-settle-for-9hr-minimum-wage-elizabeth-warren-pushes-for-22-video/) in another hearing. She even got Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to agree (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/bernanke-warren-too-big-to-fail_n_2916970.html) that "Too-Big-to-Fail" banks should be broken up. Now she’s introducing a bill that says if the banks that wrecked our economy and multinational corporations can borrow billions at a 0.75% interest rate, then students should be able to get those same rates when pursuing a higher education.

Apple exploited this obviously rigged system earlier this month when it borrowed $17 billion (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/business/how-apple-and-other-corporations-move-profit-to-avoid-taxes.html?_r=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1367543005-85cEqzIDBXvuzrfI9V3eZA&) from the Federal Reserve at the preferential interest rate (http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12849.htm), then used it to enrich their own executives and dodge $9 billion in taxes. Banks borrow regularly at that same rate from the Fed to make risky bets on Wall Street. But this Summer, students with federal Stafford loans will see their interest rates double from 3.4% to 6.8% (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/education/student-loan-rate-set-to-rise-despite-lack-of-support.html). The banks aren’t creating anything real, just imaginary financial instruments. But ensuring that more people have access to a college education will only improve society in the long run. So why are we bleeding poor students dry while giving big banks preferential treatment?


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/17347-focus-benghazi-the-shiny-object-distracting-us-from-elizabeth-warren

Repugs don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK about 4 dead Americans.

[boutons_deux]

Karl Rove Super PAC attacks Hillary Clinton (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/karl_rove_super_pac_attacks_hillary_clinton/)

A new video from the Karl Rove-linked Super PAC American Crossroads attacks Hillary Clinton for the State Department’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi, asking why Clinton “blamed protesters” and videos, instead of terrorists. “Was she part of a cover-up?” the video asks.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/karl_rove_super_pac_attacks_hillary_clinton/

Repugs don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK about 4 dead Americans.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is the GOP hpoing this 'scandal' will last for 4 years? I guess their intention is to try and drag it out.. good luck with that.

Poor Bill O'Reilly wants to know why the populace is not more engaged in this scandal.. lol

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton “should never hold high office again” (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/rand_paul_hillary_clinton_should_never_hold_high_o ffice_again/)http://media.salon.com/2013/03/republicans-conservatives-cpac-2013.jpeg-620x412.jpg


http://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/rand_paul_hillary_clinton_should_never_hold_high_o ffice_again/

[ChumpDumper]

Man, Republicans are terrified of Clinton.

[boutons_deux]

Man, Republicans are terrified of Clinton.

She'd romp with the women, blacks (she could learn to play the saxophone), LGBT, hispanics, Asians, minorities, making Barry's trashing of Bishop Gecko seem gentle. (not that neo-con Hillary is a my favorite)

[boutons_deux]

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-09-benghazi_gate_bush_era_320.jpg

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name
"David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/yemen.american/) when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could've been raised about the Bush-era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm's way (a line they repeated over and over again (http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2009/03/convenient_patr.html) during those years).

So we're only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president's second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Repugs don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK about 4 dead Americans.

[BobaFett1]

not surprising that 4 deaths > 5,000 deaths...

Cover up..........stick on subject you struggling to.

[BobaFett1]

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-09-benghazi_gate_bush_era_320.jpg

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name
"David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/yemen.american/) when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could've been raised about the Bush-era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm's way (a line they repeated over and over again (http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2009/03/convenient_patr.html) during those years).

So we're only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president's second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Repugs don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK about 4 dead Americans.




Obama has said do not cross the red line,lol

[BobaFett1]

Is the GOP hpoing this 'scandal' will last for 4 years? I guess their intention is to try and drag it out.. good luck with that.

Poor Bill O'Reilly wants to know why the populace is not more engaged in this scandal.. lol

Because you sheep keep watching CNBC

[BobaFett1]

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-09-benghazi_gate_bush_era_320.jpg

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name
"David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/yemen.american/) when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could've been raised about the Bush-era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm's way (a line they repeated over and over again (http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2009/03/convenient_patr.html) during those years).

So we're only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president's second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Repugs don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK about 4 dead Americans.




:lol hUFFINGTON pOST.

[ChumpDumper]

Because you sheep keep watching CNBC
You don't even know what CNBC is.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol hUFFINGTON pOST.So you don't deny these attacks took place.

[BobaFett1]

So you don't deny these attacks took place.

Stay on subject Dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

The subject is attacks on US diplomatic missions.

You don't care about all those other deadly attacks and all the Americans who were killed in them?

[BobaFett1]

The subject is attacks on US diplomatic missions.

You don't care about all those other deadly attacks and all the Americans who were killed in them?

Quit trying to change the subject. Focus on the cover up Dumper.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, since you don't care about the deaths of Americans unless it benefits your political party of choice, what do you say they are trying to cover up?

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton “should never hold high office again” (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/rand_paul_hillary_clinton_should_never_hold_high_o ffice_again/)

http://media.salon.com/2013/03/republicans-conservatives-cpac-2013.jpeg-620x412.jpg


http://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/rand_paul_hillary_clinton_should_never_hold_high_o ffice_again/

GOP's Rand Paul raises profile with eye on 2016


Sen. Rand Paul says he's only "considering" running for president. But he's doing much more than mulling it over.

The Kentucky Republican is unabashedly clearing a path to seek the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, with a series of early voting state visits, a beefed-up political operation and a deliberate plan to appeal to mainstream voters and raise his national profile.

"I am traveling to a lot of states that just coincidentally have early primaries," Paul told Radio Iowa Thursday. :lol :lol :lol Fucking LIAR! :lol


"But part of that is to grow the Republican Party as well."

Paul's road is far from easy, given the galaxy of Republican stars considering running for the party's presidential nod — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 2012 vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and more. But Paul enjoys tea party backing and a network of supporters from father Ron Paul's back-to-back White House bids.

Among the challenges facing the 50-year-old freshman senator: He must convince Republican mainstream voters that he is more than a tea party champion or simply heir to his libertarian dad's ideals. And he has begun making the case that he could bridge the divide between Republican voters and those who overwhelmingly choose Democrats. At historically black Howard University last month, Paul said the GOP needs to appeal to black voters and other minorities. And he's adopted a more welcoming tone toward Hispanics by pledging to "find a place" for working immigrants.

Paul's presidential coming-out begins Friday in early-voting Iowa.

The senator is billed as the main speaker at the state Republican Party's annual spring fundraising event — called the Lincoln Day Dinner — in Cedar Rapids. He'll also address the Iowa Federation of Republican women and meet with Johnson County Republicans during the two-day trip.

Ten days later, Paul is slated to deliver the keynote address at a similar event for the New Hampshire GOP — the Liberty Dinner — in that important early primary state. He'll cap May's busy travel schedule with a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California on May 31.

Then it's back to Iowa next month for a meeting with influential evangelical pastors and a visit to early-voting South Carolina June 28 for a GOP fundraiser.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41688/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=UQgz7Pnw&full=true#display

Rand Paul doesn't GIVE A FLYING FUCK about 4 dead Americans.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ok, since you don't care about the deaths of Americans unless it benefits your political party of choice, what do you say they are trying to cover up?

[boutons_deux]

VEGAS: ROVE ATTACK ADS SEAL VICTORY FOR HILLARY


—News that Karl Rove’s PAC, American Crossroads, has bought ads attacking Hillary Clinton has sent the Democrat’s stock soaring in Las Vegas, where oddsmakers now say she is virtually guaranteed to be the next President of the United States.

“People were bullish on Hillary before this,” said Tracy Klugian, a leading Las Vegas oddsmaker for over forty years. “But the Rove thing makes it a lock.”

After American Crossroads’s historic string of defeats in 2012, “Serious gamblers wait to see who Rove is supporting and then bet the house on the other side.”

The oddsmaker’s only concern, he added, was that Rove’s involvement in the race will dry up all interest in betting on Republican candidates for 2016: “Right now I’m offering Marco Rubio at ninety thousand to one and I ain’t getting a bite.”

While acknowledging that “there’s no sure thing” in the world of gambling, Mr. Klugian said that for professional gamblers, betting against Karl Rove is “as good as it gets.”

“He’s the LeBron James of losing,” he said.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/05/vegas-rove-attack-ads-seal-victory-for-hillary.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(119)

[Koolaid_Man]

I don't give a shit about any of it...thousands died when Bush lied....

[SA210]

thousands died when Bush lied....


Very true. The only thing is THOUSANDS have also died with OBAMA expanding Bush policies, expansion and escalation of illegal wars, drones, interventions, etc. Obama committed war crimes by even intervening in Libya to begin with a couple years back, period.

Whether you admit it, or not, it's a fact. Too bad though, Republicans can't go after him for war crimes because they approve of such crap.

However, I look forward to the impeachment process, it needs to happen. :tu

[SA210]

.
Damn..Glenn Greenwald with the goods lol Maher gets butthurt


Bill Maher Gets Owned by Glenn Greenwald Over Benghazi and Interventionism


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB-itn_LJuM

[boutons_deux]

KY-scrotum-sucker Ron Paul must keep piling on this shit to prime his run for Pres :lol

UN has secret plot to ‘CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL’ of America’s guns

In a fundraising email (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/) sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely disarm American civilians.

“Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/12/rand-paul-un-has-secret-plot-to-confiscate-and-destroy-all-of-americas-guns/

he must think there are enough gun-fellating, paranoid marans to put him into the WH. :lol

He'll carrry nobody outside of the gun-fellating paranoid fringe.

[mouse]

asaHC_xQ6Qo

[Winehole23]

.
Damn..Glenn Greenwald with the goods lol Maher gets butthurtMaher didn't want to hear that it was proper to investigate.

investigations have taken place, Congress has exercised oversight and held public hearings.

what should happen next, SA210?

[boutons_deux]

Maher didn't want to hear that it was proper to investigate.

investigations have taken place, Congress has exercised oversight and held public hearings.

what should happen next, SA210?

impeach Hillary and Barry. It's the Repug Way (c) of vicious, bad faith harassment (while the Know-Nothing Repugs/tea baggers Do-Nothing to govern)

[Winehole23]

both sides use Congressional hearings as a soapbox for grandstanding and as a club to bash a sitting president from the other party. Republicans neither invented the practice nor have any monopoly on it.

if you ever took the blinders off I guess you wouldn't be you.

[boutons_deux]

both sides use Congressional hearings as a soapbox for grandstanding and as a club to bash a sitting president from the other party. Republicans neither invented the practice nor have any monopoly on it.

if you ever took the blinders off I guess you wouldn't be you.

False equivalence GFY

What the Repugs are doing with Benghazi is exactly what they did throughout the 90s to harass Bill and Hillary.

Provide examples of where the Dems did St Ronnie, Pappy, etc what the Repugs are doing to any Dem President.

(Tricky Dick was a nasty, evil, criminal son of a bitch, so that's not an example)

[Winehole23]

political bodies do politics. Congress checks the executive.

that's as designed, your howls of partisan outrage totally notwithstanding.

[boutons_deux]

political bodies do politics. Congress checks the executive.

that's as designed, your howls of partisan outrage totally notwithstanding.

you won't, because you can't, provide an equivalent Dem example that comes anywhere near the Repug Clintons/Barry harassment/witch-hunting

[BobaFett1]

boutons_deux I wonder if you can admit Al Gore is a big phony? I mean he sold his Tv Network to a terror media group and he has money in big oil.

[Winehole23]

the Bork and Thomas hearings come to mind. hearings related to Katrina and the firing of attorneys in 2006 were used as a political club against the sitting president.

any legitimate cause for investigation can be hijacked for political purposes, and often will be.

[Winehole23]

...

[TeyshaBlue]

the Bork and Thomas hearings come to mind. hearings related to Katrina and the firing of attorneys in 2006 were used as a political club against the sitting president.

any legitimate cause for investigation can be hijacked for political purposes, and often will be.

In B4 effete academic navel-gazing gfy

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

.
Damn..Glenn Greenwald with the goods lol Maher gets butthurt


Bill Maher Gets Owned by Glenn Greenwald Over Benghazi and Interventionism


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB-itn_LJuM
Yeah I've never seen Maher get destroyed on his show half as badly as Greenwald destroyed him there.

[Winehole23]

In B4 effete academic navel-gazing gfyraising commonplaces into outrages is the apparent prescription for that.

[boutons_deux]

the Bork and Thomas hearings come to mind. hearings related to Katrina and the firing of attorneys in 2006 were used as a political club against the sitting president.

any legitimate cause for investigation can be hijacked for political purposes, and often will be.

Bork went on to prove himself so ideologically extreme that keeping him out of SCOTUS was correct. but the Regugs still packed the court later with extreme assholes like Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia

It was pretty clear than Thomas was and probably still is a sexual predator.

After Clinton left FEMA in great shape, the Repug fucked it up, as was seen in Katrina, hearing justified

dubya's politicized attorneys were fired not for not enforcing the law, but for not finding the "widespread" voter fraud. hearings justified.

GFY

[boutons_deux]

Issa: Obama Covered Up Benghazi Terrorism By Calling It An ‘Act Of Terror’ (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-covered-up-benghazi-terrorism-by-calling-it-an-act-of-terror/)

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-covered-up-benghazi-terrorism-by-calling-it-an-act-of-terror/

Repugs/Fox make up shit, and flip-flop on it.

[boutons_deux]

EXCLUSIVE: Embassy Staff Undercut ‘Whistleblower’ Testimony On Benghazi (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/10/1986251/benghazi-whistleblower-hicks/)
Staff who served in Libya with Gregory Hicks, the GOP’s primary “whistleblower” in this week’s hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks, undercut his story that State Department officials demoted him as retribution for speaking out, instead telling ThinkProgress about a man who one described as “the worst manager I’ve ever seen in the Foreign Service.”
Throughout his testimony on Wednesday, Hicks seemed certain that any critique of his leadership style while serving as deputy chief of mission in Libya was based solely around anger related to his stance on Benghazi. He also blamed his subsequent assignment (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0509/Benghazi-whistleblower-Has-diplomat-Gregory-Hicks-suffered-for-speaking-out-video) after being pulled from Libya in mid-Oct. 2012 on his speaking out against the Obama administration’s response to the attacks.

However, ThinkProgress has talked to staffers based in Libya who counter Hicks’ portrayal of both his own performance and the State Department’s alleged response to him speaking out. A meeting between Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and Hicks took place in Tripoli prior to his removal from Libya, but not under the same circumstances Hicks sought to portray. Counter to Hicks’ story of an unwarranted reassignment, the staff was upset with Hicks’ performance since he was first assigned to Tripoli on July 31, and told Jones as much prior to her meeting with Hicks.

“[Jones] and her aide had one-on-one meetings with us to see if [Hicks] could be guided into being a better leader,” a State Department employee posted to Libya told ThinkProgress. “Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post,” said the employee, who spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity, as they were not cleared to discuss personnel issues with the press.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/10/1986251/benghazi-whistleblower-hicks/

:lol

[SA210]

Benghazi whistle-blower a Democrat, voted for Hillary and Obama twice


A key Benghazi whistle-blower who has allegedly been punished for speaking out against the administration is a registered Democrat who voted for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The lawyer of Gregory Hicks, the former U.S. deputy chief of mission in Libya who testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, confirmed the information to The Daily Caller on Saturday.

According to the lawyer, Victoria Toensing, Hicks voted for Clinton during the 2008 primary, and for then-Illinois Sen. Obama in the 2008 general election. He again voted for Obama in 2012.

“The fact is he is a registered Democrat in Virginia. The fact is he voted for Hilary in the primary and Obama and then again for Obama,” Toensing said.

Toensing added that she did not know he was a Democrat until the day before the hearing. “I’m not interested in that,” she said. “I’m interested in government not abusing its powers.”

Hicks testified before the House Oversight Committee this week regarding the events that took place on Sept. 11, 2012 in Benghazi and recalled how the State Department told him not to cooperate with the congressional investigation into the events, which led to the deaths of four Americans.

Hicks further testified that he has been demoted since Benghazi.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/11/benghazi-whistle-blower-a-democrat-voted-for-hillary-and-obama-twice/#ixzz2TCsnoX3Z

[ChumpDumper]

:lol multispam

[boutons_deux]

Finally House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is explaining exactly why (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/13/1208843/-Finally-an-explanation-why-Benghazi-is-such-a-scandal) Benghazi is a scandal:

“Act of terror” is different than a “terrorist attack.”
Duh. That’s why we’ve been talking about this for more than half a year… the president didn’t properly modify a noun.
Issa also points out that he could have caught a commercial flight to Libya in seven hours, though it probably would take him over 20 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/13/1208821/-New-Issa-theory-Obama-is-lying-because-you-can-fly-commercial-from-D-C-to-Benghazi-in-seven-hours).

http://www.nationalmemo.com/why-does-the-house-gop-think-benghazi-is-a-scandal-because-an-act-of-terror-is-different-than-a-terrorist-attack/

1%er Issa grandstanding and padding his short career

[Spurtacular]

Actually, all of these questions have already been answered. Wherever you copied that from is uninformed.

Chump is okay with no response. What difference does it make now?