Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both?

[depotoo]

Ya'll keep saying that but don't give any specifics as to how? Shit happens, and unfortunately Benghazi didn't have the proper security because Republicans in Congress refused to increase funding. Ever think about that?

It's about time Republican/conservatives started taking responsibility for their mistakes.

yeah....but only the fringe far left thinks that way. The only place you hear bogus shit like that is on MSNBC which about 117 people watch each night.

I don't know what you are calling bogus. It's a fact that Republicans in Congress voted "no" to increasing funds for Embassies, and Benghazi was one that needed increased security.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

And, you're probably right, only a fringe on the left watch MSNBC, and not all the time like the nuts on the right, who the majority of them watches Faux News 24/7.

Obviously, you have not listened to the hearings that were already held in which they stated there was not a budget shortfall and budget had nothing to do with the decreaseed security in Benghazi by members of the Obama administration.

 

[depotoo]

By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 10/14/12 11:13 AM EDT Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on Obama and Benghazi)

Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn't want to the appearance of needing increased security.

"The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don't want the presence of security," Issa said. "That is not how you do security."

$2.2 billion

 

[depotoo]

Only on internet message boards, 4am talk radio and the pages of CT Paranoia Comics, the next exciting issue of which features a scratch-and-sniff of Glenn Beck's ass.

The real world? Rotsa ruck selling it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL1h-xNGllE]Father Of Navy SEAL Killed In Benghazi Says Obama Admin Pushing A "Pack Of Lies" - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyrB4iQBHdM&feature=player_embedded]Families Of Benghazi Victims Still Have Not Benn Given Info On Attack - Pat Smith - Geraldo - YouTube[/ame]

I was about to ask what your point was but I see; I left Fox Noise off the list.

My bad. I must be slipping You are correct; that is a powerful propaganda tool, especially considering how well they did under the influence of Dick Morris and Karl Rove.

so you consider airing the fact that members of their families are asking for answers as they can't get any from this administration propaganda? Now be sure and let those parents know how you feel, ok?

 

[Mertex]

yeah....but only the fringe far left thinks that way. The only place you hear bogus shit like that is on MSNBC which about 117 people watch each night.

I don't know what you are calling bogus. It's a fact that Republicans in Congress voted "no" to increasing funds for Embassies, and Benghazi was one that needed increased security.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

And, you're probably right, only a fringe on the left watch MSNBC, and not all the time like the nuts on the right, who the majority of them watches Faux News 24/7.

Obviously, you have not listened to the hearings that were already held in which they stated there was not a budget shortfall and budget had nothing to do with the decreaseed security in Benghazi by members of the Obama administration.

Obviously you didn't pay attention to Republicans whining that the White House failed to provide adequate security at the Benghazi embassy.

Lynch categorically dismissed the persistent claim that the White House failed to provide adequate security at the Benghazi embassy.
In a heated exchange on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Lynch pointed out that Republicans voted against additional funding for embassy security when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requested it:
Democratic Congressman Refuses To Let Republicans Ignore GOP Security Budget Cuts In New Benghazi Hearing | ThinkProgress

 

[Pogo]

Father Of Navy SEAL Killed In Benghazi Says Obama Admin Pushing A "Pack Of Lies" - YouTube

Families Of Benghazi Victims Still Have Not Benn Given Info On Attack - Pat Smith - Geraldo - YouTube

I was about to ask what your point was but I see; I left Fox Noise off the list.

My bad. I must be slipping You are correct; that is a powerful propaganda tool, especially considering how well they did under the influence of Dick Morris and Karl Rove.

so you consider airing the fact that members of their families are asking for answers as they can't get any from this administration propaganda? Now be sure and let those parents know how you feel, ok?

What I "consider" is that you're trying to move the goalposts with this juvenile appeal-to-emotion bullshit. Which I guess explains the Fox Noise posts; that's what they monger.

What I actually said was good luck selling it to the public.

The question in the OP has nothing to do with the parents of the victims of this embassy attack or any other embassy attack. The question posed is, "can we sell it?".
If it could have been sold it would have by now. Creating more internet threads about conspiracy theories is nothing more than paranoia-porn. Doesn't make the fantasy real.

 

[depotoo]

I was about to ask what your point was but I see; I left Fox Noise off the list.

My bad. I must be slipping You are correct; that is a powerful propaganda tool, especially considering how well they did under the influence of Dick Morris and Karl Rove.

so you consider airing the fact that members of their families are asking for answers as they can't get any from this administration propaganda? Now be sure and let those parents know how you feel, ok?

What I "consider" is that you're trying to move the goalposts with this juvenile appeal to emotion bullshit.

What I actually said was good luck selling it to the public.

Duh.

Selling it? Is that what you think this is? Something to sell? Wow.

What is juvenile is trying to deny the facts as they sit before you.

 

[Mertex]

For months Republicans have been trying so hard to turn the Benghazi incident into a scandal they can pin on Obama, and they keep coming up empty. They just can't stand the fact that Obama has escaped 4 years without a scandal and it's driving them crazy.

As 2016 approaches, and they realize how much higher Hillary is in the polls than any other Democratic contender, and Republican contender they are frothing at the mouth to try rev Benghazi up one more time and see if any of the crap they sling at the wall ends up sticking.

Give it up, there's nothing there.

Three career State Department officials – who describe themselves as Benghazi "whistleblowers" — will testify at Wednesday's widely anticipated congressional hearing, Fox News reported, releasing the names that have been kept a well-guarded secret.

The three men who will testify about the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks, in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, are:

Gregory N. Hicks, a foreign service officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya

Former Marine Mark I. Thompson, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism for the State Department.

Diplomatic security officer Eric Nordstrom, former Regional Security Officer in Libya. He was the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

They will appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by California Republican Darrell Issa.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 3 State Dept. 'Whistleblowers' To Testify at Benghazi Hearing

how is this for a "nothing there, give it up" ??

well, at least the liarberals are faithful to their illegal alien muslime mulatto dictator !!

Once again, the Republicans trying to revive this issue will come out with nothing.
Issa provided some of the information that supposedly this "whistleblower" Hicks is going to provide and it's the same crap all over again - that "he knew it was a terrorist attack from the getgo and that Susan Rice was told to say it was a protest regarding some video" - that is not new information, it's the same crap rehashed, recooked and served over again and the results from all this hoopla will be the same - Zero, Zip, Nada, Ziltch! How pathetic.

And Nordstrom, who claims he is not a whistleblower, his contribution has to do with the fact that Benghazi was refused additional security, which brings us back to the fact that Republicans were the ones refusing to increase funding for security.

Looks like the witch hunters in the GOP will be handed their asses again, and will have to think of a new way to serve the same singsong "Susan Rice said it was over a video, and it wasn't, it was a terrorist attack"! They want Susan Rice spanked for saying it was due to a video and will continue to go to great lengths to try and fool Americans that they finally have something "new" to prove that Obama is hiding something, when it's the same old "Susan Rice said it was over a video" crap.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both? | National Review Online

By Victor Davis Hanson

Benghazi cannot be dismissed with “long ago” or “what difference does it make” exasperation, given it may have the cover-up and civil-liberties aspects of Watergate and the weapon-transfers and foreign-policy implications of Iran-Contra.


Mr. Hanson makes 4 logical points that require the reader to reconsider what Mr. Obama is up to.
Beside the loss of four killed and at least 6 wounded and maimed, the most insulting thing about the Benghazi fiasco is that this narcissistic president could really believe that he could fool Americans about the incompetent handling and loss of life at that isolated post.

It is becoming neither, except in the minds of some desperate people on the right.

it was pure deadly incompetence to leave them alone to die, but lying about it for months is probably a criminal offense that can cause them real trouble.

You know what they say, the coverup is usually worse than the crime.

 

[Caroljo]

Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both? | National Review Online

By Victor Davis Hanson

Benghazi cannot be dismissed with “long ago” or “what difference does it make” exasperation, given it may have the cover-up and civil-liberties aspects of Watergate and the weapon-transfers and foreign-policy implications of Iran-Contra.


Mr. Hanson makes 4 logical points that require the reader to reconsider what Mr. Obama is up to.
Beside the loss of four killed and at least 6 wounded and maimed, the most insulting thing about the Benghazi fiasco is that this narcissistic president could really believe that he could fool Americans about the incompetent handling and loss of life at that isolated post.

For months Republicans have been trying so hard to turn the Benghazi incident into a scandal they can pin on Obama, and they keep coming up empty. They just can't stand the fact that Obama has escaped 4 years without a scandal and it's driving them crazy.

As 2016 approaches, and they realize how much higher Hillary is in the polls than any other Democratic contender, and Republican contender they are frothing at the mouth to try rev Benghazi up one more time and see if any of the crap they sling at the wall ends up sticking.

Give it up, there's nothing there.

Lol! You are sooooo fricking worried about these whistle blowers aren't you!?!
And Hillary will go no place....I know quite a few libs that have had their eye's opened to what their party is doing. There's no way!

 

[Caroljo]

The left can't even conceive of the possibility that Obama, Lord, Savior, Daddy, might have fucked this up

Ya'll keep saying that but don't give any specifics as to how? Shit happens, and unfortunately Benghazi didn't have the proper security because Republicans in Congress refused to increase funding. Ever think about that?

It's about time Republican/conservatives started taking responsibility for their mistakes.

General funding....but not for emergencies like this. They would have released funds immediately in this kind of situation. But they didn't know anything about it....there was that little problem of Obama and Hillary wanting to cover this up and blame it on a video....

Sorry, but i don't believe that our government doesn't have something in place to cover things like this. Or are they all just that stupid?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The left can't even conceive of the possibility that Obama, Lord, Savior, Daddy, might have fucked this up

Ya'll keep saying that but don't give any specifics as to how? Shit happens, and unfortunately Benghazi didn't have the proper security because Republicans in Congress refused to increase funding. Ever think about that?

It's about time Republican/conservatives started taking responsibility for their mistakes.

General funding....but not for emergencies like this. They would have released funds immediately in this kind of situation. But they didn't know anything about it....there was that little problem of Obama and Hillary wanting to cover this up and blame it on a video....

Sorry, but i don't believe that our government doesn't have something in place to cover things like this. Or are they all just that stupid?

actually there was a plane full of Special Forces ready to take off but liberals told them to stand down. THe firepower was standing by; it had nothing to do with money.

Best guess is they wanted it to look like work place violence or something, not terrorism so they could continue the fiction that they had defeated terrorism.

They lied and may have committed crimes for which they should pay dearly.

 

[Mertex]

Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both? | National Review Online

By Victor Davis Hanson

Benghazi cannot be dismissed with “long ago” or “what difference does it make” exasperation, given it may have the cover-up and civil-liberties aspects of Watergate and the weapon-transfers and foreign-policy implications of Iran-Contra.


Mr. Hanson makes 4 logical points that require the reader to reconsider what Mr. Obama is up to.
Beside the loss of four killed and at least 6 wounded and maimed, the most insulting thing about the Benghazi fiasco is that this narcissistic president could really believe that he could fool Americans about the incompetent handling and loss of life at that isolated post.

It is becoming neither, except in the minds of some desperate people on the right.

it was pure deadly incompetence to leave them alone to die, but lying about it for months is probably a criminal offense that can cause them real trouble.

You know what they say, the coverup is usually worse than the crime.

Well, you would think that after all the time and effort some in the GOP have put into this that they would have come up with something by now, but nope, nada, nothing, zip.

 

[Mertex]

Ya'll keep saying that but don't give any specifics as to how? Shit happens, and unfortunately Benghazi didn't have the proper security because Republicans in Congress refused to increase funding. Ever think about that?

It's about time Republican/conservatives started taking responsibility for their mistakes.

General funding....but not for emergencies like this. They would have released funds immediately in this kind of situation. But they didn't know anything about it....there was that little problem of Obama and Hillary wanting to cover this up and blame it on a video....

Sorry, but i don't believe that our government doesn't have something in place to cover things like this. Or are they all just that stupid?

actually there was a plane full of Special Forces ready to take off but liberals told them to stand down. THe firepower was standing by; it had nothing to do with money.

Best guess is they wanted it to look like work place violence or something, not terrorism so they could continue the fiction that they had defeated terrorism.

They lied and may have committed crimes for which they should pay dearly.

Really? What liberals? Can you provide names? Can you provide links attesting to that?
Nope, you can't.

 

[Mertex]

The left can't even conceive of the possibility that Obama, Lord, Savior, Daddy, might have fucked this up

Ya'll keep saying that but don't give any specifics as to how? Shit happens, and unfortunately Benghazi didn't have the proper security because Republicans in Congress refused to increase funding. Ever think about that?

It's about time Republican/conservatives started taking responsibility for their mistakes.

General funding....but not for emergencies like this. They would have released funds immediately in this kind of situation. But they didn't know anything about it....there was that little problem of Obama and Hillary wanting to cover this up and blame it on a video....

Sorry, but i don't believe that our government doesn't have something in place to cover things like this. Or are they all just that stupid?

Are you that naive? Yes, you are. Funding at the time of the attack is not what was needed. Republicans are saying that Benghazi needed more security, but they are the ones that voted "no" to increasing funding for security.

And how would "emergency" funding have helped, exactly?

 

[depotoo]

Ya'll keep saying that but don't give any specifics as to how? Shit happens, and unfortunately Benghazi didn't have the proper security because Republicans in Congress refused to increase funding. Ever think about that?

It's about time Republican/conservatives started taking responsibility for their mistakes.

General funding....but not for emergencies like this. They would have released funds immediately in this kind of situation. But they didn't know anything about it....there was that little problem of Obama and Hillary wanting to cover this up and blame it on a video....

Sorry, but i don't believe that our government doesn't have something in place to cover things like this. Or are they all just that stupid?

Are you that naive? Yes, you are. Funding at the time of the attack is not what was needed. Republicans are saying that Benghazi needed more security, but they are the ones that voted "no" to increasing funding for security.

And how would "emergency" funding have helped, exactly?

And you are another that has not listened to the Benghazi hearings. It was stated by officials within the State Department there was no problem with funding for extra security if they had wanted to increase the security there. The reduced budget woiuld have had no effect on the decision to not increase security there. Go look up the hearings on c-span. You can hear it for yourself.

Senate Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Benghazi | C-SPAN

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

 

[depotoo]

for those interested here is a live link to the hearing -
Committee On Oversight & Government Reform

 

[Mertex]

Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both? | National Review Online

By Victor Davis Hanson

Benghazi cannot be dismissed with “long ago” or “what difference does it make” exasperation, given it may have the cover-up and civil-liberties aspects of Watergate and the weapon-transfers and foreign-policy implications of Iran-Contra.


Mr. Hanson makes 4 logical points that require the reader to reconsider what Mr. Obama is up to.
Beside the loss of four killed and at least 6 wounded and maimed, the most insulting thing about the Benghazi fiasco is that this narcissistic president could really believe that he could fool Americans about the incompetent handling and loss of life at that isolated post.

For months Republicans have been trying so hard to turn the Benghazi incident into a scandal they can pin on Obama, and they keep coming up empty. They just can't stand the fact that Obama has escaped 4 years without a scandal and it's driving them crazy.

As 2016 approaches, and they realize how much higher Hillary is in the polls than any other Democratic contender, and Republican contender they are frothing at the mouth to try rev Benghazi up one more time and see if any of the crap they sling at the wall ends up sticking.

Give it up, there's nothing there.

Lol! You are sooooo fricking worried about these whistle blowers aren't you!?!
And Hillary will go no place....I know quite a few libs that have had their eye's opened to what their party is doing. There's no way!

Oh yes, we're trembling in our boots, because after Republicans have been making fools of themselves agonizing over the fact that "Susan Rice said it was due to a video but it was actually a terrorist attack", and that in itself a scandal does not make, but now, finally some people that "know" something and had not been forthcoming before, all of a sudden are?

I believe we're just going to hear more of the same old story, told by different people and the hope of destroying Hillary will be yet again another failed attempt.

 

[Mertex]

General funding....but not for emergencies like this. They would have released funds immediately in this kind of situation. But they didn't know anything about it....there was that little problem of Obama and Hillary wanting to cover this up and blame it on a video....

Sorry, but i don't believe that our government doesn't have something in place to cover things like this. Or are they all just that stupid?

Are you that naive? Yes, you are. Funding at the time of the attack is not what was needed. Republicans are saying that Benghazi needed more security, but they are the ones that voted "no" to increasing funding for security.

And how would "emergency" funding have helped, exactly?

And you are another that has not listened to the Benghazi hearings. It was stated by officials within the State Department there was no problem with funding for extra security if they had wanted to increase the security there. The reduced budget woiuld have had no effect on the decision to not increase security there. Go look up the hearings on c-span. You can hear it for yourself.

Senate Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Benghazi | C-SPAN

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

I know what was said in the hearings, but the fact remains that Republicans first attempted to blame it on lack of security, that is, until it was revealed that they were the ones to blame due to the fact they voted "no" to increasing funding for security.

Then Republicans switched their complaint to the fact that "Susan Rice said it was a video that caused it, but it was a terrorist attack" - and they couldn't contradict the fact that Obama, the very next morning called it an "act of terror".

Conservative Republicans challenged Clinton on the lack of security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others were killed, as well as the erroneous account provided four days later by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack grew spontaneously from a protest over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States.
Clinton takes on Benghazi critics, warns of more security threats - CNN.com

So what are they going to reveal this time that will definitely be grounds to impeach Obama? That Susan Rice lied to the American people and said it was due to a video when Hicks, Nordstrom and the other whistleblower all knew it was a terrorist attack? GOP has already been there, done that!

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....just took a gander over to DRUDGEand have to say.....I laughing my balls off when I checked out the litany of shit in the headline area in the top lefthand side of the page.

Im not seeing dick about the established narrative the lefty k00ks have fallen back on, "Republicans cut funding!!". You might find shit like that now......but only over at MSLSD that only about 289 people are going to watch anyway tonight.

Nothing will happen to Obama here.....in fact, the big boys are going to make sure that its Hillary thrown under the bus here. An adminstration official or two might be tossed to the dogs too, but this prognostication stuff about Obama, while compelling, is not going to add up to dick sorry to say.

 

[Grandma]

The only ones actually buying into the ridiculous "scandal" are people that would never vote for Hillary anyway. Waste of taxpayer money, typical republican day at the office.