"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Carla_Danger]

If there really was no Benghazi scandal...then kindly explain why it is that four Americans are dead. Duh?

Because shit happens. This is a mean old world.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not a "conspiracy theory"...it's simply an honest assessment of what took place. The safety of our diplomatic staff in Libya was fatally compromised because of a really naive belief by the Hillary Clinton led State Department that we could rely on local militias to protect our consulate.

Oh, is this what your take on why Benghazi is supposedly a "scandal" is this week? Reality check, host countries are ALWAYS responsible for the security of embassies and consulates.

Nor is it a "conspiracy theory" to point out that the Obama White House decided to go with a narrative that it wasn't Al Queda that was behind the attacks that killed those four Americans but that the attacks took place because of a YouTube video.

The guys who did it said they were pissed about the video. So were people in 30 other countries that attacked western interests.

I'm still waiting for one of you to explain why Ben Rhodes' emails would have been reclassified as Top Secret by the Obama White House if there wasn't an effort made to hide what took place in the week following the attacks.

Maybe they were still investigating or acting on intelligence.

Point is, you guys have been trying for two years now to create a Benghazi scandal, and every investigation has exonerated Obama and Clinton.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If there really was no Benghazi scandal...then kindly explain why it is that four Americans are dead. Duh?

Because shit happens. This is a mean old world.

No, they won't accept that. Hillary did it, herself, with a pipe, in the library.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If there really was no Benghazi scandal...then kindly explain why it is that four Americans are dead. Duh?

Because shit happens. This is a mean old world.

No, they won't accept that. Hillary did it, herself, with a pipe, in the library.

They need to start hanging out with the 9-11 conspiracy freaks. Isn't there a special forum for them here?

 

[Oldstyle]

It's not a "conspiracy theory"...it's simply an honest assessment of what took place. The safety of our diplomatic staff in Libya was fatally compromised because of a really naive belief by the Hillary Clinton led State Department that we could rely on local militias to protect our consulate.

Oh, is this what your take on why Benghazi is supposedly a "scandal" is this week? Reality check, host countries are ALWAYS responsible for the security of embassies and consulates.

Nor is it a "conspiracy theory" to point out that the Obama White House decided to go with a narrative that it wasn't Al Queda that was behind the attacks that killed those four Americans but that the attacks took place because of a YouTube video.

The guys who did it said they were pissed about the video. So were people in 30 other countries that attacked western interests.

I'm still waiting for one of you to explain why Ben Rhodes' emails would have been reclassified as Top Secret by the Obama White House if there wasn't an effort made to hide what took place in the week following the attacks.

Maybe they were still investigating or acting on intelligence.

Point is, you guys have been trying for two years now to create a Benghazi scandal, and every investigation has exonerated Obama and Clinton.

Your ignorance continues to amuse, Joey.

Reality check...the Clinton State Department ignored repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens for a detail of security not to be removed from Libya. The State Department cut the size of the security detail in Libya protecting Stevens from 30 down to 5. That testimony was given by Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, Gregory Hicks in response to accusations by Democrats that it was Stevens who declined security.

This notion that "shit happens" and Benghazi was nobody's fault is ridiculous. Decisions were made by the Hillary Clinton led State Department to draw down security levels as part of (as State put it) a policy of "normalization" which essentially meant ignoring escalating violence on the ground in Libya while the State Department declared the situation to be improving. It was obvious to even the most casual observer that the security situation in Libya was NOT improving and was in fact becoming so dangerous for Western organizations of any kind that even the Red Cross had pulled it's people out.

That deteriorating situation was ignored by the Clinton State Department because it didn't fit their narrative that things were great in Libya. Shit did happen! Four Americans lost their lives because we had a State Department who based policy on what they "wished" the world was like instead of what it really was!

 

[Oldstyle]

If there really was no Benghazi scandal...then kindly explain why it is that four Americans are dead. Duh?

Because shit happens. This is a mean old world.

No, they won't accept that. Hillary did it, herself, with a pipe, in the library.

They need to start hanging out with the 9-11 conspiracy freaks. Isn't there a special forum for them here?

Would you like to take a crack at explaining why the White House reclassified Ben Rhodes' emails, Carla?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If there really was no Benghazi scandal...then kindly explain why it is that four Americans are dead. Duh?

Because obama failed in securing US interests and outposts on the most necessary and obvious of dates because he believed he had personally decimated al Gayda. In order to effect a coverup of that failure and protect his reelection bud -- just like Nixon -- he concocted an excuse through an anti-muslim movie. When it became clear to the public that that was not the impetus for the attack he pretended to suggest he knew it was a terrorist attack all along. Candy Crowley aided him in the endeavor.
Regardless of the weeds of any investigation, obama admitted the first story was a lie and coverup by attempting to say he believed it was terrorism from the outset. The two angles cannot logically coexist so the hack in chief is extremely guilty.
Anyone who tries to justify that forfeits credibility and is essentially a Nixon apologist.

 

[rdean]

But isn't trying to get the American people to believe there was a scandal to begin with a "scandal"? Aren't the lies that led us into Iraq a scandal? Aren't the lies the Bush Tax Cuts would be good for the economy a "scandal"? The tens of thousands of young Americans maimed for life only to destabilize the Middle East? Not only a scandal, but it should be a crime.
The real scandals are all the lies and damage done to this country by the GOP in their lame attempt to uncover non-existent scandals. It really is a shame. Too bad they have no shame.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

Clearly not all of them.

There are still quite a few delusional rightists trying to keep the 'Benghazi' conspiracy theory alive.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

Clearly not all of them.

There are still quite a few delusional rightists trying to keep the 'Benghazi' conspiracy theory alive.

And I put the same question to you, Clayton...if there was no deception about what happened in Benghazi by the Obama White House then explain why they reclassified the Ben Rhodes emails? You don't designate things "Top Secret" and hide them from Congress and the public if you have nothing to cover-up. You do that if you have deceived people and don't want them to know.

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again...Benghazi was simply an example of naive progressive ideology not working out well in the real world. Hillary Clinton didn't want a lot of security in Libya not because they weren't needed but because the "optics" would be bad. The story line coming out of State was that Libya was getting better not worse.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Once again...Benghazi was simply an example of naive progressive ideology not working out well in the real world. Hillary Clinton didn't want a lot of security in Libya not because they weren't needed but because the "optics" would be bad. The story line coming out of State was that Libya was getting better not worse.

That was Stevens, the dead guy dummy. Look it up. He turned down more security twice and was 400 miles away from the secured embassy, where no one died.

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again...Benghazi was simply an example of naive progressive ideology not working out well in the real world. Hillary Clinton didn't want a lot of security in Libya not because they weren't needed but because the "optics" would be bad. The story line coming out of State was that Libya was getting better not worse.

That was Stevens, the dead guy dummy. Look it up. He turned down more security twice and was 400 miles away from the secured embassy, where no one died.

No, actually that's a total fabrication by liberals like yourself as to what happened. Gregory Hicks' testimony was that Stevens repeatedly asked for security not to be drawn down. Did Stevens turn down two requests from the DOD for security forces? Yes he did...because he didn't have the authority to accept the DOD offer. The following sums up what Stevens problem was.

"What appears indisputable is that on two occasions in July and August 2012, General Carter Ham, commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM), asked Stevens directly if he wanted a special forces security team for Benghazi, which Ham could provide operating under military command. The offer was made because of Stevens’s concerns that the DOD-provided team he had was set to leave, when its term expired in August 2012. Security forces available for the U.S. Mission compound in Benghazi would drop to near zero with the departure of that team.

And Stevens did say no, when faced with this question from Ham. But he wasn’t saying no to an opportunity to have a big enough security force. He was saying no to an offer he didn’t have the authority to accept.

The State Department’s policy was to let the existing, DOD-provided security team go, and seek security support from the Libyans. Stevens had been arguing against that policy – Hicks gives chapter and verse on that – but he was losing.

Significantly, the DOD-provided team whose term was almost up at the time worked for State (meaning it reported to Stevens), and had diplomatic immunity for anything it might have to do to ensure security for the U.S. mission in country. If Stevens accepted a special forces team from Ham, it would be a on a different basis.

Two factors made the offer from Ham a non-starter for Stevens. One, it wasn’t in his power to override State policy. His uncommunicative “no’s” to General Ham were a way of complying with State policy, without airing the internal debate between him and his superiors.

Two, the issue of diplomatic immunity mattered. The U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya, the standard instrument by which the purview of U.S. military security forces is established between America and a foreign country where our forces operate. If a special forces team was there as part of the U.S. diplomatic mission, it had immunity; if it was there under DOD command, its status was unnegotiated: existing in a sort of twilight zone in which its actions – which could well include killing Libyans – would make our soldiers vulnerable to arrest and prosecution, and create major problems for Stevens and the U.S. government.

Hicks indicates that he testified to these considerations before the Senate committee:

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report."

Wall Street Journal

 

[Oldstyle]

You've either willfully misconstrued what happened...or you're ignorant of what happened...choose one.

 

[Claudette]

He's willfully willing to believe what the administration put out. Four dead men mean absoulutely nothing to Paintmyass.

He'd rather believe that anyone who wants the truth about Benghazi is an idiot. Its just the way his ass rolls.

Paintmyass isn't interested in the truth and neither are any of the other Barry supporters.

To bad none of their relatives were killed at Benghazi. If they had been these morons would be singing a vastly different tune.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If there really was no Benghazi scandal...then kindly explain why it is that four Americans are dead. Duh?

Because shit happens. This is a mean old world.

No, they won't accept that. Hillary did it, herself, with a pipe, in the library.

They need to start hanging out with the 9-11 conspiracy freaks. Isn't there a special forum for them here?

Yes, along with the birthers, Bilderbergers, and Trilateralists.

 

[JoeB131]

Your ignorance continues to amuse, Joey.

Reality check...the Clinton State Department ignored repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens for a detail of security not to be removed from Libya. The State Department cut the size of the security detail in Libya protecting Stevens from 30 down to 5. That testimony was given by Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, Gregory Hicks in response to accusations by Democrats that it was Stevens who declined security.

Yeah, well, it was too bad the Republicans slashed $100 million from embassy security, wasn't it?

This notion that "shit happens" and Benghazi was nobody's fault is ridiculous. Decisions were made by the Hillary Clinton led State Department to draw down security levels as part of (as State put it) a policy of "normalization" which essentially meant ignoring escalating violence on the ground in Libya while the State Department declared the situation to be improving. It was obvious to even the most casual observer that the security situation in Libya was NOT improving and was in fact becoming so dangerous for Western organizations of any kind that even the Red Cross had pulled it's people out.

Guy, you can spin it all day. BUt the thing was, the GOP was the one who slashed millions from the security budgets of the State Department. Maybe we need to talk to Paul Ryan, he's the one who wants a small Randian government. This is what Randian government looks like.

You ghouls have been trying to make political hay about Stevens' death for two years now, and you just look silly doing it.

 

[JoeB131]

He's willfully willing to believe what the administration put out. Four dead men mean absoulutely nothing to Paintmyass.

He'd rather believe that anyone who wants the truth about Benghazi is an idiot. Its just the way his ass rolls.

Paintmyass isn't interested in the truth and neither are any of the other Barry supporters.

To bad none of their relatives were killed at Benghazi. If they had been these morons would be singing a vastly different tune.

You've had 8 investigations into Benghazi, and they've all concluded that there really wasn't much that could have prevented what happened.

 

[birddog]

Hillary and Obama are dirty crooks in the Benghazi cover up! Period!
I would rather believe the ones that were there, not ones who went to bed as they didn't give a damn for the people there! Lack of funding was not a contributing factor, only an idiot would say that!

 

[JoeB131]

Hillary and Obama are dirty crooks in the Benghazi cover up! Period!
I would rather believe the ones that were there, not ones who went to bed as they didn't give a damn for the people there! Lack of funding was not a contributing factor, only an idiot would say that!

Again, Republican Logic-

5000 Americans die in Iraq because of one bad decision after another made by Bush, and they will defend it to this very day.

4 Americans die in Libya during a riot, and GOSH DARN, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!