Reply With Quote
all Repugs, they started the Iraq war, setup the military for failure, just like Viet Nam
do they really think Bishop Gecko and his neocon Dept of State would have done anything different?
House Republicans have concluded that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies bear no blame for failing to halt the terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, releasing a report Tuesday that said President Obama and the State Department set up the military for failure.
The report also found that plenty of intelligence presaged the attack, but the White House and State Department — including the secretary at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton — failed to heed the warnings.
In the most damning conclusion, House Republicans said Mr. Obama’s team lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation.
“This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks,” the GOP investigation concluded in its 46-page report.
The White House dismissed the report as a rehash of questions the administration has answered, and said it has provided extraordinary cooperation.
The report was released after rank-and-file Republicans feared the pressure to get answers on the Benghazi attacks was subsiding.
Some House Republicans want to create a Watergate-style special committee to investigate the attacks, but leaders have resisted, saying the existing investigative, defense, foreign affairs, intelligence and judiciary committees can handle it. Tuesday’s interim report is the result.
The report also could dog Mrs. Clinton if she returns to politics.
The Sept. 11 attacks on the consulate in Benghazi left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
The GOP report said the White House was responsible for prohibiting the mention of terrorism, and the report said administration officials were trying to shield themselves from criticism that they had been too lax in security.
“It is clear that the State Department expressed concerns — and was backed by the White House — that the information be removed to avoid criticism for ignoring the general threat environment in Benghazi,” the report said.
Democrats on the five committees fired off a letter Tuesday saying they were left out of the report-writing entirely, and that the end result was biased.
“You are sacrificing accuracy in favor of partisanship,” the ranking Democrats on each committee said in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the report goes over old ground and that some of the conclusions conflict with the State Department’s internal review.
“The State Department’s Accountability Review Board — the independent body charged with reviewing the attacks and evaluating the interagency response — released its report which specifically found that the interagency response was ‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans,’ while also making important recommendations to improve security that we are in the process of implementing,” she said.
She said the administration has cooperated with the House committees’ efforts to investigate.
But House Republicans said the State Department’s review fell short. The GOP report said blame for lax security extended all the way to Mrs. Clinton.
The State Department didn’t comment on the report, but Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who took over for Mrs. Clinton this year, told House lawmakers last week that he would appoint a special liaison to try to dispel lingering questions. Still, he dismissed the core of the GOP’s charge.
“I don’t think anybody lied to anybody,” he said.
The Benghazi attacks played a major role in last year’s presidential campaign, with Republican nominee Mitt Romney arguing Mr. Obama was slow in recognizing it was a terrorist assault.
In a major turning point in the presidential debates, Mr. Obama retorted that he had mentioned terrorism in his first remarks on the attacks in a speech from the White House Rose Garden.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2ROcpztmC
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
I am glad the GOP is interested in getting to the bottom of this attack...As the 9/11 Commission noted, "There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBS [Presidential Daily Briefings] from January 21 to September 11 that related to Bin Laden." In a section of the report called "The Drumbeat Begins," the Commission highlights a late June briefing that alerts to the "high probability of near-term 'spectacular' terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties … including a 'severe blow' against U.S. and Israeli 'interests' during the next two weeks." But whereas the Commission report describes the threat of attacks worldwide, Eichenwald's exclusive intel specifically cites a domestic threat, one with "dramatic consequences."
all Repugs, they started the Iraq war, setup the military for failure, just like Viet Nam
do they really think Bishop Gecko and his neocon Dept of State would have done anything different?
So, it wasn't a spontaneous protest against the youtube video?
Sending that Rice lady out to do all the Sunday news programs was probably a mistake.
Fox Repug Propaganda network and it's bad-faith, duped suckers here in full slander mode
Reports Undermine Fox's New Clinton Smear Over Benghazi
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04...-over-b/193750
FOX NEWS!!!!
President Johnson was a Democratic President who got us into the Viet Nam War.
Kennedy sent "advisors"
Nixon killed Johnson's 1968 Paris peace talks as his Prez campaign strategy and prolonged the war another 7 years.
Was Benghazi the first time Americans at an overseas embassy, or consulate killed?
If this is the only hope of defeating Clinton in 2016, might as well pencil her in for two terms.
Fox News is reporting for duty! lol
the way things are going she may even win Texas.
She was smart to step down now and to me is a positive indicator she is Likely to run
Lil chumpy was so confident back then.
The Benghazi investigation(s) are completely moot in 2018, saving minds in which HRC lives rent free. They were barely credible in their own time.
Went on for 3 1/2 years. Got bupkis.
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-04-2018 at 04:37 AM.
Trey Gowdy posts around here these days, he can give you all the details about that witch hunt, tbh... heck I still remember the fake outrage from conservatives back then...
You're a partisan hack if you 'believe' it was fake outrage.
You can label me whatever you want. I can understand the initial outrage, but after 2+ years and she being cleared of any wrongdoing, the parading through the Republican committee was a pretty costly and largely fake political spectacle.
I don't like Hillary one bit, but you gotta call a spade a spade.
I mean if we're being sincere, who was the last potential Republican candidate paraded and investigated for 3+ years by a Democratic Congress for work he/she did in an administration? I can't think of one.
I would certainly be just as annoyed if that'd be the case. It's doubly-insulting that the same guys that talk about balanced budgets, cutting government spending, etc, spend ridiculous amounts of time and money on a political stunt for years.
They very likely spent more time on that panel than actually getting us a passable healthcare legislation to replace Barrycare. It's inexcusable at some point.
Political maneuvering is a side issue. People were legit upset about:
1. Americans left stranded to die.
2. Fake blaming of a coordinated terrorist attack as a spontaneous demonstration to a video.
3. The coverup.
I could list more; but in the interest of keeping it simple. It's nothing but a Democrat talking point to call it politicization. Two years doesn't mean a thing to it.
The only comparable event for such a thing to happen, imo would be the first 9/11. And you either believe some of the conspiracies that many were implicated and that such an inquiry wasn't going to happen, or you don't believe there was someone who played the neglectful role that Hillary did.
Also, if you know that someone is gunning for the highest office in the land and is on an inside track, then you're right to deliver high scrutiny, especially as warranted in the first place. Hillary's not the victim of a political witch hunt. Not at all.
If they were serious about an investigation into potential criminal charges, they would've hired a special independent counsel to carry it out. They're lawmakers, not investigators, PLUS that gives the investigation more credibility in the sense that the political motive is out the window.
The whole thing was a political parade for TV, and as usual they overdid it (it wasn't 2 years, it was 3 plus). They managed to turn a serious matter into a meme. Ridiculous.
You're arguing it from a very political / govt. working side of it. Like how holy are Republicans relative to Hillary? That is basically what you're putting forth.
I'm speaking of it from an American civilian perspective. Hillary's actions were abhorrent. The government's actions as a whole were abhorrent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
