BENGHAZI is krokodil for many conservatives and especially FAUX NOOZ. But they can't and won't give it up. And if you link to what krokodil is, you'll see why they cling to it so desperately and what it will do to them.
"The co-chair of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board on the Benghazi terror attacks last year said on Wednesday criticized those claiming the Obama administration’s response to the attacks has the elements of some kind of Watergate-style cover-up.
“I think the notion of a quote, cover up, has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it,” former Ambassador Thomas Pickering said on MSNBC. He also rebutted claims that the review board tried to protect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from scrutiny:
PICKERING: I saw no evidence of it. She did publicly take responsibility for what happened below her and indeed one of the things the Congress did in preparing the legislation that established the Accountability Review Board was to say we don’t want a situation where heads of agencies take responsibility and then nobody who made the decision in the chain has to suffer any consequences for failure for performance. I believe in fact the Accountability Review Board did it’s work well. I think the notion of a quote, cover up, has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.
PICKERING: The aircraft at Aviano were 2 to 3 hours away but there were no refueling aircraft available. I think that speaks for itself. It has all along. I don’t see any contradiction. … There should be no controversy over that. Aircraft were there but they were not available in a time span that could have made any serious difference in connection with the issue."
The Benghazi Hearings: What's New and What's Not
62 comments:
Sick comparison Shaw. While I don't offend easily your link offends even me. As the addictive adrenaline rush experienced by demonizing the opposing views continues.
Is it any wonder our nation is so deeply divided? Yet both sides seem to have determined the mirror is of little to no use.
Sigh... And the beat goes on.
There is always two (or more) views for any given issue. Yet those of us who are passionate about our beliefs TEND to forget this. IMO.
Sorry Rational, Shaw put it on net with the drug reference.
This has been covered from every angle and there "is no there, there".
It's time to let go but if you think the dog and pony show in front of Issa's (R-Car thief) committee is the far right's last hit ... well we both know better.
Embassy attacks have been rare under Obama, stiffened embassy security in Ankara stopped an attack a while back but this is not going to be discussed by adults. Breitbart.com, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and Fox Snooze will try to keep this meme going right into the 2016 primary.
There aren't two views to this issue. All evidence states there was no way to effectively intervene.
End it.
I just lost a detailed response to your comment Ducky.
I did not say I agree.
Initially I thought there might have been a cover up. Not so at this point in time.
Most important, there are more pressing concerns to occupy the nation's time.
Nonetheless, my point is let it play out. America is not as dumb as you may think.
Sorry my point didn't make it through. Hope I cleared it up.
Oh, and there is ALWAYS more than one view. Whether or not you like you like it it is what it is. Of course one is always (more) right while the other is not.
I'm surprised, RN, that you've never heard an obsession compared with a drug dependence. It's quite common.
In this case, the krokodil eventually destroys its users.
Everyone knows that the Benghazi tragedy was the result of bad planning and reaction, but there was no cover-up or anything close to an impeachable offense. And that's what the GOP has been pushing since last Sept.
It can't give it up. Like a drug addict can't give up his krokodil.
The POINT lurking above, below, behind and within all the folderol and tarradiddle surroundng Benghazi is the egregious, unabashed, assiduous application of a pronounced Double Standard in the enemedia:
If Benghazi had occurred under a Republican President, we'd have heard about NOTHNG ELSE from Day One, but because it happened on Barack Obama's watch -- and it involved Hillary Clinton -- all meaningful discussion has been avoided, dismissed and brushed aside, and any attempts to get to the bottom of it by forces opposed to Absolute Power Granted to a Permanent Democratic Incumbency are mocked, scorned, derided, and lampooned.
It's the DOUBLE STANDARD to which we conservatives most strenuously object, and to MINDLESS, MONOLITHIC PARTISANSHIP in general from either side of the aisle.
Except Free, we have direct evidence that this very type of tragedy did in fact occur during the Bush Admin... I don't recall anything like these types of hearings or complaints back then.
Even when the Dems retook the house in 2006, when they could have mounted similar hearings, the Dems declined.
The evidence does not support your view...
No, goddammit! There are NOT ALWAYS "two or more [fucking] views for any given issue."
Sometimes there is only one view - and everything else is mere defamation and character assassination for the sake of scoring political points. Why is this so galling?
Because gutter politics is fundamentally dishonest and immoral - predicated on false accusations, distortions, outright lies, and demagoguery.
Manufactured controversy has only one purpose - to discredit worthy opponents and murder reputations by engendering anger and hysteria. It suckers unthinking idiots who reflexively self-identify along partisan lines and turns themselves into a lynch mob. This is how ReThugs have opportunistically exploited the Benghazi incident.
Why? Hint: (in case you haven't noticed) there are elections in 2014 and 2016. When ReThugs have nothing on which to run, that is when they resort to pandering.
Off topic (but another example of the same old shit), the Heritage Foundation hired a avowed white supremacist and Aryan Nation bigot to number crunch their anti-immigration report. Yup, same old shit!
Anon,
I may not always agree with RN's views, but he is no bigot.
I offer exhibit A --- FT. As if on cue.
The problem with your desire for a centrist position, RN, is the illegitimacy of the right wing position. There is no reason to concede on Benghazi. The right is blowing smoke and should be called on i.
As candidate Hillary said, "what difference does it make".
After all only four Americans died and the administration did all they could to obfuscate the facts about the attack and the talking points to follow.
Nixon resigned because of a cover up what will the current non leader do. My guess is if you are in the administration stay away from buses.
Since the media is all obama, little will be reported and the republicans will be blamed because it is a right wing conspiracy without the dress.
Skud, what is being covered up as GOP partisans charge? What is it we supposedly do not know?
Ducky. I do not believe I suggested concession. By all means continue presenting information that is supported by evidence and let the chips fall where they may. Truth has a way of winning people over.
Addition, thinking reasonable people.
Shaw, of course I've been aware of the comparison for years. Used it myself when confronted with the issue of substance abuse when managing businesses. I just thought it was over the top. But that's just my NHO.
The hearing convened Wednesday by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) produced a riveting narrative of the chaotic events in Libya last September. But what was the supposedly unforgivable crime?
Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound? This is a decision that clearly still haunts and enrages Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who sat helplessly in the capital while Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were being killed at the consulate 650 miles away.
But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees. It is difficult not to feel his pain. But it is also difficult, frankly, to believe that he knows more about deploying troops than do the professionals.
DID... maybe the question we need to ask the GOP is this... what do you want to know that you do not already know?
Skud... feel free to answer any of these...
Dave,
I guess you are right, what difference does it make. Maybe something about lies, ineptness and cover up but I am sure that doesn't matter.
Even All Barack Channel is now reporting the revisions of the talking points 10 times. If we know everything, why are the democrat owned media trying to spin this into a right wing conspiracy.
Somehow the leftist have a different take on transparent administration. Like Crystal and Rice, Hillary needs to stay clear of buses.
skudrunner: "I guess you are right, what difference does it make. Maybe something about lies, ineptness and cover up but I am sure that doesn't matter."
There was nothing in the way of "lies, ineptness, and cover-up" that came out of the hearings, even if you are bitterly disappoint by that.
skudrunner: "Even All Barack Channel is now reporting the revisions of the talking points 10 times."
Translation: Why aren't the media calling for President Obama's impeachment.
skudrunner: "If we know everything, why are the democrat owned media trying to spin this into a right wing conspiracy."
Translation: Why aren't the media spinning this the way I WANT it to! The media is covering up! INPEACH!
skudrunner: "Somehow the leftist have a different take on transparent administration. Like Crystal and Rice, Hillary needs to stay clear of buses."
TRANSLATION: wAAAH! wAAAAH! This didn't end up the way I wanted it to! INPEACH OBAMA!
The Benghazi investigation (?) appears to be no more than a witch hunt of the McCarthy era revisited. We are told that it is a 'scandal' of Watergate proportions..... but nothing is presented to substantiate the position.
There is no 'cover-up'. There has not been a shred of evidence to even think there may be one.
It is interesting, though, that not so long ago several media groups, Republican politicians, postulated that Obama was using Sandy Hook for political gain. In reality, he perceived a grievous problem and sought rational solution.
There really is no solution to avert Benghazi type tragedies..other than to close all consulates and embassies. Or to take a NRA type fix... and assign a brigade or two of Marines to each. I am surprised that has not been mentioned.
It is just a witch hunt for political gain. Wave the bloody shirt when it suits your purpose.
It truly makes me sick.
Skud, your non answer speaks volumes...
Nowhere did I ever say or imply that the deaths of our people are anything less than a tragedy.
But once again, what is it we know now that we did not already know?
For there to be a coverup, as suggested by Sen Graham, along the lines of Watergate, we need something.
Updating talking points to reflect a political viewpoint? Was it done? Of course, but that does not change the facts...
4 people died in Libya, we were unprepared, and our troops could not have got there in time to make a difference, at least according to the Joint Chiefs...
Hitler was a socialist check out what NAZI means. There are elements of Obama's agenda that are socialist just like Presidents who preceeded him.
The first was admitedly a poor way to phrae my point, which I have acknowledged to Shaw here on her blog, she accepted my statement and we have not spoke of it again. I am notba Jew hater, a bigot, or a Nazi.
Now, feel free to live your lies and YOUR hate.
Good day.
Today at BBC News: "After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll."
The piece mentions THIS at ABC News.
Make of the above what you will, but, as far as I know, neither of those sources is conservative per se.
Anon,
I am in no way defending RN's failure to understand the difference between fascism versus socialism (and his tendency to equate socialism with fascism and "mixed economies" with socialism), but 6 comments spaced an average of 2-3 minutes apart is a bit OCD and does you no credit. It seems you have an anger mismanagement problem.
Octo..... there seems to be some anger management issues a foot. Perhaps a shortage of lithium.
more about Benghazi.... in a different vein...
I ate at Benghazi’s once. The couscous with goose was good, and so was the marinated dates. The flat bread was excellent! The salad left much to be desired though.
RE: the shit in Washington? It is tilting at windmills, chasing the elusive e-mail….. that doesn’t exist. Sancho Panza and I will still stick with the couscous.
“But all this must be suffered by those who profess the stern order of chivalry” ~Cervantes
I am waiting for Benghazi the musical..." To impeach the impeachable dream"
Anon, your attacks on one of my commenters will not be tolerated.
The point is this:
There were 12 attacks on embassies and consulates and 53 killed during Bush's administration.
Congressional hearings were not held on ANY of these tragedies.
Can any conservative explain why the Republicans are obsessing on the Benghazi attack?
There was no cover-up. None.
So why the obsession?
I'd like to hear why the GOP didn't investigate the 12 attacks on embassies and consulates during GWB's administration.
Thanks.
Republicans can't prove anything in this matter becase there's no wrongdoing or gross irresponsibility, or cover up, to prove. What's more most Republicans in Congress probably know this.
The truth isn't what Republicans are interested in. They want to do some serious image damage to President Obama and Hillary Clinton, for purely selfish political reasons. Republicans' real goal is to convince a substantial portion of the public that there's enough smoke that there must be some fire in there somewhere, even if no fire can actually be found. So, Republicans and the whole Right Wing Noise Machine are working overtime generating smoke.
(Pause here to fully appreciate what I'm saying: fire isn't generating the smoke; Republicans are generating the smoke.)
Republicans, with $80 million worth of worthless "help" from Ken Starr, spent much of the 1990's trying to bring down the Clintons for their purported wrongdoing in the Whitewater nonscandal; for the death of Vince Foster; and finally, with plenty of help from Bubba himself, the Lewsinski affair. At the end of the day, Starr had to admit that for all that wasted taxpayer money and nearly six years of "investigating," he had nothing. Congressional Republicans had the exquisite pleasure of impeaching Bill Clinton, but were left high and dry in the end, denied the orgasmic release of seeing him driven from the White House while being booed by an angry public. Even so, it wasn't all a loss. Sort through a bunch of wingnuts and even some independents, and you won't have trouble finding people who are convinced the Clintons did something crooked with Whitewater; got Vince Foster killed or set him up to commit suicide; and, finally, that there is a long trail of women Bill Clinton seduced or raped who, for various reasons, won't come forward and tell their story.
Then, recall the various lies the Bush administration generated about Iraq, Saddam and his al Qaida ties, all those WMD's, the smoking gun that imminently becomes a mushroom cloud. All propaganda, mostly lies, distortions and innuendo. And yet, to this day between 10 and 20 percent of the population still believes one or more of those lies, distortions and the innuendo.
It's the same the Big Lie technique that worked so well for Stalin and Goebbels' propaganda machines. You just keep at it, lying, insinuating, asking incriminating questions, throwing up more wild, unfounded and irresponsible allegations, and after awhile your empty allegations make their way into the public consciousness as if there was some truth to them.
That's all this is. The disgusting part is that to some as yet unknown extext it will work as it has worked before.
I don't know much about the workings of the Bush administration. I'm not a member of the GOP.
That said, perhaps because no ambassador was killed?
Prior to the murder of Ambassador Stevens on September 11, 2012, one of our ambassadors had not been slain since 1979.
If any of you get a chance, you might want to watch the press conference that Jay Carney held today. Quite something -- no matter what your political leanings.
S.W.,
Republicans can't prove anything in this matter becase there's no wrongdoing or gross irresponsibility, or cover up, to prove.
We don't know that yet. As one who lived through the Watergate Era, I make this statement with confidence.
PS: No fan of RMN here!
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.
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.)
The rest are HERE.
Is an ambassador's life worth more as a life than the 53 people who died in the attacks on American embassies and consulates during the Bush administration?
The fact that no Congressional hearings were held on the attacks during GWB's administration makes this investigation and obsession on this particular attack look very, very political and aimed at wounding the president and Secretary Clinton.
I can't think of any other explanation.
The Democrats did not attack GWB's administration when 53 people were killed during embassy and consulate attacks on his watch.
Was there a cover up? Likely not! Possible mismanagement, maybe. If this were a crime GWB and others before him are quilty and their Secretaries as well, maybe.
Time to focus on improving security and be willing to pay for it. Assuming of course we WANT to keep a presence throughout the rather violent world. More later.
Well, ABC News is reporting that the Benghazi narrative changed 12 times. That's part of what I heard today, anyway.
Another thing....Isn't a "film maker" under arrest or in jail for contributing the cause of what happened in Benghazi? It seems to have been revealed today that the "film" had no connection with Benghazi but rather was inserted into the official narrative.
As for the worth of an ambassador's life, it has long been the protocol that an ambassador's life is particularly protected as compared to the lives of adjunct personnel.
All from me for now. ABC World News is about to air.
Jay Carney was also questioned about this matter today: "IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election."
RN,
Was there a cover up? Likely not!
Jay Carney's body language -- and sometimes his words -- didn't bear out that statement from you. Jay Carney didn't acquit himself well today during that press conference, which went on and on and on at the reporters' insistence.
I'm not a very good bean counter, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that the number of articles attacking George W. Bush on any and every pretext real and imagined far outnumber the attacks on President Obama by the Mainstream Media.
If anyone wants to hunt up the statistics -- NOT in any leftist sources like The Daily KOS, The Democratic Underground, Buzzflash or The Nation, please -- I think you'd find I'm correct -- not that it would matter.
One thing I've learned years and years of blogging: No One EVER Changes His Mind Once It's Made Up.
A sad commentary on the human condition!
(0)CT(P)US... "I am in no way defending RN's failure to understand the difference between fascism versus socialism (and his tendency to equate socialism with fascism and "mixed economies" with socialism),..."
1) Certainly you need not defend your perception of my "failure to understand"...
2) Fascism is: an economic system that allows for private ownership while imposing centralized regulatory control. I get that is is dictatorial and exalts nation and race above the individual.
3) Socialism is: is a system that advocates collective or government ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods. I get it.
The USA is a mixed economy. A mish mash of semi free markets regulated by government regulation with a ever incresing trajectory towards the true socialist model.
I get it.
I tend to view things globally and look at hings from the perspective of historical trends. What I see is in fact a trending of the USA towards fascism (has been for neigh on 35 years) in the political nationalistic sense and towards socialism in the economic sense. Going back to TR and accelerating forward, with but a few lulls.
The ultimate mixture does not dode well fore the USA. IMHO.
I do sincerely appreciate that you (O)CT(O)PUS understand I am not a Jew hater or Bigot and had the balls to make the point. THANK YOU!
______________ An Object Lesson ______________
A Harley Biker is riding by the zoo in Washington , DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents. The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.
The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'
The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'
The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page...So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'
The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'
The journalist leaves.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!
... And THAT pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days ... ;-)
Nope. That's what people whose default reaction to anything they read or hear in the media is to always feel aggrieved think.
It's been like that as far as I can remember.
I'm reminded that once there were REAL news reporters. Mike Wallace and Sam Donaldson come to mind.
Did I mention Huntley and Brinkley? And who could forget Walter Cronkite?
Perhaps there is something to be said for the "good old days" after all.
But as is so oft heard in modern pop culture... "It is what it is."
Bought sums it up Don't cha think? Well, it does for me anyway.
Anon,
There are a few bloggers - including myself - who know your identity. We have not discussed you or your signs and symptoms in public as an act of kindness. Although your identity shall remain safe, the time for us to say something is nevertheless overdue:
Over the years, we have observed your growing intolerance of even minor variations of opinion, and tendency to regard others with suspicion and lash out without impulse control. Please understand: A cause of over-reactive behaviors may offer an explanation, but an explanation is never an excuse. At some point, you still need to take responsibility and hold yourself accountable for your words and actions.
Gratuitous fly-by attacks on people do not ennoble you or will accomplish nothing. Ultimately, you end up doing more harm to yourself than you realize.
How about holding Jew haters accountable and those who protect them, like you and Shaw
Please out me, I'm curious to know if you have a clue.
I read a couple of recent news stories on this... one said Benghazi is "Watergate Revenge" and that Republicans would like to impeach Obama. Another suggested Republicans are going to keep hammering on Benghazi indefinitely. They think it can help them in the midterms, and help them in 2016 (if Hillary runs). I think we probably know just about everything already... which proves this is purely political. There is no cover-up. The Administration incorrectly linked the attack to the "innocence of Muslims" video, but that lasted about a day. As you recall Obama tripped up Romney in the debates with this issue (exactly WHEN Obama called it a terrorist attack).
Regarding the number of people killed at US embassies and consulates under GWb's watch: Media Matters says 7 were attacked and 25 people were killed... and none of them were Americans (Non-US citizens working at the embassies, law enforcement/military personal of the foreign governments guarding our embassies, and civilians). Your "Conservative Logic 101" Facebook image says 12 attacks and 53 AMERICANS killed. Can anyone confirm which is correct? I'm writing a post about this for my own blog, and would like to get the correct info.
Anon,
I am fully circumcised and circumscribed in what I say on the Internet. Having lost ancestors in the Holocaust, I get damn angry when people like you raise the specter of a Godwin fallacy to score cheap points. It defiles the memory of my ancestors.
No, I refuse to out you. Ethics are ethics, regardless of how much you piss me off.
It's unfortunate that "Blogger" does not provide blog owners with and EXCLUDE provision for nuisance "contributors." It would save ever so much wear and tear on --- whatever.
"A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING to LOSE."
FT,
Blogger doesn't have some of the provisions that it needs! We can't blame these flaws on the fact the Blogger is a free service. Wordpress, to which I may move, is free and DOES offer a way of banning nuisances (and worse types).
aNon, enjoying the look of your babbling permanently displayed for all to witness?
Do have a nice Sunday May 12th 2013.
Anon is sick and evil. He projects his demons on everyone else.
Post a Comment