"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Oldstyle]

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.

You lurch from one ridiculous White House talking point to another! Need I remind you that the woman in charge of Libya for the State Department completely blew that up in her sworn testimony?

2. Contra the Democrat narrative, the security flaws in Benghazi were not due to the budget. From Representative Elijah Cummings (D., Maryland) prepared statement for the hearing (emphasis in original):

The fact is that, since 2011, the House has cut embassy security by hundreds of millions of dollars below the amounts requested by the President. The Senate restored some of these funds, but the final amounts were still far below the Administration’s requests. And they were far below the levels we enacted in 2010.

We can do better, and I would like to ask the Chairman to join me in doing so. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to join me in calling on our leaders in the House to immediately consider a supplemental funding bill to restore funding for embassy security that was cut by the House over the past two years.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, we could save $2.5 billion per year just by eliminating the tax break for oil companies. Even Republicans now agree that we should do this, including Governor Romney. We could fully replenish these embassy security accounts with just a fraction of that amount.

But when questioned, Lamb denied that budgetary concerns had influenced her decision. committee “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

“No, sir,” said Lamb.

3. Charlene Lamb denies the State Department didn’t secure the Benghazi diplomatic post sufficiently. “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon.” House oversight committee chair Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) didn’t care for that answer, retorting that her beginning of “saying the correct number, and our ambassador and three other [Americans]… left for dead, and people are in the hospital recovering, because it only took moments to breach that facility somehow doesn’t seem to ring true to the American people.”

#more#

4. The State Department viewed the situation in Libya as growing more dangerous, yet denied Eric Nordstrom’s request to keep certain security at then-current levels. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) asked Nordstrom, a regional security officer at the State Department who had been stationed in Libya for several months recently, about his pay. “What I think you’re referring to is the increase in danger pay for a post,” responded Nordstrom. “To clarify,” Chaffetz cut in, “you were asking for more assets, more resources, more personnel. That was denied, but the State Department went back and re-classified it as more dangerous. The danger pay, therefore, increased. They didn’t tell you that we didn’t have resources, they the Congress just cut your budget. They gave you an increase because the danger was rising. Correct?

“That’s correct,” responded Nordstrom, “we received a danger increase.”

5. Nordstrom and Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guard member who had led a security team in Libya , were both frustrated by the lack of support from the State Department on granting security requests. “Mr. Nordstrom, do you think they were ever going to give you what you wanted?” asked Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio). “What do you think would warrant them saying “You know what, these guys know what they’re talking about and we’re going to meet their request?”

“Thank you for asking that question,” responded Nordstrom. “I actually had that conversation when I came back on leave and for training in February. I was told by the Regional Director for Near Eastern Affairs that there had ‘only been one incident involving an American’ where he was struck by celebratory fire, it was one of Colonel Wood’s employees. The takeaway from that, for me and my staff, it was abundantly clear, we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is, again, ‘How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?’”

And then there was this exchange:

Jordan: “Lt. Col Wood and Mr. Nordstrom- were you pulling your hair out? Were you just flabbergasted- ‘What can we do? What can we say? What can we put in writing? What can we say on the phone? What else can we do? Was that your sense and attitude when you got the answers from Washington that you did?”

Wood: “We were fighting a losing battle, we couldn’t even keep what we had. We were not even allowed to even keep what we had.”

Nordstrom: “If I could add to that, I told the same Regional Director in a telephone call in Benghazi after he contacted me when I asked for 12 agents, his response to that was ‘You’re asking for the sun, moon, and the stars.’ And my response to him- his name’s Jim- ‘Jim, you know what is the most frustrating about this assignment, it’s not the hardships, it’s not the gunfire, it’s not the threats. It’s dealing, and fighting, against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.’ And I added it by saying ‘For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.’”

You talk about "spin", Joey...who's REALLY doing the spinning...you or me? The people on the ground in Libya paint a very clear picture of requests being made by them to the Clinton State Department and those requests repeatedly being rebuffed. Charlene Lamb obviously didn't get the memo that she was supposed to mislead the American people and Congress because she admitted that budget cuts had nothing to do with security staffing levels. Lamb stated under oath that State was satisfied with the number of security personnel in Libya. Spin that, Joey...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Half of those will be down by the end of the week, guy.

Oh my... the assurances of an imbecile.

I suppose that MOST of those on the first page were uploaded in 2012, BEFORE BENGHAZI... and are still there, offending every Muslim that can find its way to Youtube... shouldn't be considered against the veracity of your personal assurances?

Or shouldn't I have pointed that fact out?

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, you're an imbecile. And that means that what something looks like to you, is irrelevant to people of sound mind.

Okay, guy, you are the one who thinks that Stevens was killed in some grand conspiracy to institigate a riot to make Obama look bad that was started by Obama.

Yup, you are totally of "sound mind".

After many months of pinning their hopes on finding an actual scandal the Republicans have come up with nothing. If there had ever been even a hint of anything illegal, improper or unconstitutional they would have called for a special prosecutor right away. Of course from the very beginning Republicans were far more concerned about the perception of whether or not Obama called it terrorism than they ever were in knowing about the attack itself. The hearings and so called investigation were a sham to begin with since Republican law makers obviously already had all the intelligence at their disposal. If they didn't already know everything how else could they have determined that the attack was not related to the ongoing protests over the incendiary video......... within hours of the incident? How did they know that so quickly? Are they clairvoyant?

How did they know? Gee, could it be because everyone BUT the Obama White House had come to the realization that there was no protest that led to an attack at about the 24 hour mark after the attacks were over? Local Libyan leaders kept saying there was no protest. So were American intelligence groups. The only ones repeating the initial incorrect intelligence assessment that there WAS a protest in Benghazi that turned violent were the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, you're an imbecile. And that means that what something looks like to you, is irrelevant to people of sound mind.

Okay, guy, you are the one who thinks that Stevens was killed in some grand conspiracy to institigate a riot to make Obama look bad that was started by Obama.

Yup, you are totally of "sound mind".

After many months of pinning their hopes on finding an actual scandal the Republicans have come up with nothing. If there had ever been even a hint of anything illegal, improper or unconstitutional they would have called for a special prosecutor right away. Of course from the very beginning Republicans were far more concerned about the perception of whether or not Obama called it terrorism than they ever were in knowing about the attack itself. The hearings and so called investigation were a sham to begin with since Republican law makers obviously already had all the intelligence at their disposal. If they didn't already know everything how else could they have determined that the attack was not related to the ongoing protests over the incendiary video......... within hours of the incident? How did they know that so quickly? Are they clairvoyant?

How did they know? Gee, could it be because everyone BUT the Obama White House had come to the realization that there was no protest that led to an attack at about the 24 hour mark after the attacks were over? Local Libyan leaders kept saying there was no protest. So were American intelligence groups. The only ones repeating the initial incorrect intelligence assessment that there WAS a protest in Benghazi that turned violent were the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.

Well, in their defense, that WAS the plan... they didn't really have a back-up... because, after all, why would they need one, given their stated and oh so firm belief, that their constituents are stupid.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, you're an imbecile. And that means that what something looks like to you, is irrelevant to people of sound mind.

Okay, guy, you are the one who thinks that Stevens was killed in some grand conspiracy to institigate a riot to make Obama look bad that was started by Obama.

Yup, you are totally of "sound mind".

After many months of pinning their hopes on finding an actual scandal the Republicans have come up with nothing. If there had ever been even a hint of anything illegal, improper or unconstitutional they would have called for a special prosecutor right away. Of course from the very beginning Republicans were far more concerned about the perception of whether or not Obama called it terrorism than they ever were in knowing about the attack itself. The hearings and so called investigation were a sham to begin with since Republican law makers obviously already had all the intelligence at their disposal. If they didn't already know everything how else could they have determined that the attack was not related to the ongoing protests over the incendiary video......... within hours of the incident? How did they know that so quickly? Are they clairvoyant?

How did they know? Gee, could it be because everyone BUT the Obama White House had come to the realization that there was no protest that led to an attack at about the 24 hour mark after the attacks were over? Local Libyan leaders kept saying there was no protest. So were American intelligence groups. The only ones repeating the initial incorrect intelligence assessment that there WAS a protest in Benghazi that turned violent were the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.

Well, in their defense, that WAS the plan... they didn't really have a back-up... because, after all, why would they need one, given their stated and oh so firm belief, that their constituents are stupid.

Let's remember that the Obama White House was working under the assumption that a compliant main stream media would accept any narrative that they put out...because they always HAD gone along with the narratives they were given by the White House. Under those conditions it's easy to see why the White House would make the calculated decision to mislead Congress and the American people in the lead up to the Fall elections! They made up that story about a protest that turned violent because they knew they wouldn't get called on it. When you don't get grilled on your truthfulness...it leads to a propensity to lie in order to get what you want...something that Peter Gruber illustrated in spades!

 

[JoeB131]

You lurch from one ridiculous White House talking point to another! Need I remind you that the woman in charge of Libya for the State Department completely blew that up in her sworn testimony?

2. Contra the Democrat narrative, the security flaws in Benghazi were not due to the budget. From Representative Elijah Cummings (D., Maryland) prepared statement for the hearing (emphasis in original):

Yawn, guy, you slobs cut hundreds of millions from embassy security and then wonder why our embassies get attacked.

Kind of like when you cut billions from public works and wonder why major cities get flooded.

 

[Siete]

yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

 

[Oldstyle]

You lurch from one ridiculous White House talking point to another! Need I remind you that the woman in charge of Libya for the State Department completely blew that up in her sworn testimony?

2. Contra the Democrat narrative, the security flaws in Benghazi were not due to the budget. From Representative Elijah Cummings (D., Maryland) prepared statement for the hearing (emphasis in original):

Yawn, guy, you slobs cut hundreds of millions from embassy security and then wonder why our embassies get attacked.

Kind of like when you cut billions from public works and wonder why major cities get flooded.

Those cuts were made to budget requests, Joey they were not made to existing budgets. Only the truly naive can't grasp that governmental entities by their very nature always ask for more than they need knowing that they will invariably get a smaller amount approved. Lamb's testimony that budget cuts in no way affected security levels in Libya directly refutes your claim yet you continue to make it as if she'd testified in front of Congress and said under oath that budget cuts are why security was cut in Libya.

 

[Dot Com]

You lurch from one ridiculous White House talking point to another! Need I remind you that the woman in charge of Libya for the State Department completely blew that up in her sworn testimony?

2. Contra the Democrat narrative, the security flaws in Benghazi were not due to the budget. From Representative Elijah Cummings (D., Maryland) prepared statement for the hearing (emphasis in original):

Yawn, guy, you slobs cut hundreds of millions from embassy security and then wonder why our embassies get attacked.

Kind of like when you cut billions from public works and wonder why major cities get flooded.

^ that

yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

^ & that

only the most partisan rw hacktards are still beating their chests despite their party finding "no there there". Theres only 2-3 of them on this entire forum Oldstyle being the head cheerleader.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Republican Party found that there was "no there there"? You're as obviously uninformed as Joey is.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Two died because radical Islamic extremist attacked the building they were in. Two others died hours later at the CIA complex when the American response team made their way to the CIA complex from the Benghazi airport and were attacked by mortars.

 

[BlindBoo]

If there really was no Benghazi cover-up then kindly explain why the Obama White House reclassified the Ben Rhodes emails to "Top Secret" to hide them from the American people. Duh?

There was no crime to cover up.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

Two died because radical Islamic extremist attacked the building they were in. Two others died hours later at the CIA complex when the American response team made their way to the CIA complex from the Benghazi airport and were attacked by mortars.

That's the synopsis that we never got from the Obama White House. Instead we were totally misled about a protest over a YouTube video that turned violent.

That's what happened. Now let's talk about WHY it was able to happen! Let's talk about WHY our diplomatic security was drawn down from 30 to 5 when conditions in Libya were by all accounts getting worse! The disregard for actual conditions on the ground in Libya by the Clinton State Department because they didn't like the "optics" of having an heavily armed security presence in Libya is ultimately why that consulate fell so easily. Then there is the total lack of preparedness for a military response on a day like 9/11 which also begs the question of WHY that was the case? On any OTHER date one might be excused for not being "ready" to respond...but on 9/11 you're caught with your pants around your ankles? Really? I mean REALLY???

 

[Oldstyle]

And I've never called what happened a "crime"! It's incompetence at it's finest followed up by a willful misleading of Congress and the American public.

 

[Siete]

where was I ? ... oh yeah

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

 

[Oldstyle]

Go ahead and take a long nap, Siete...the Obama Presidency will be over in a couple years and then whoever gets stuck with the job can start trying to deal with the damage left behind from eight years of "Don't do stupid stuff" and "Leading from behind".

 

[JoeB131]

Those cuts were made to budget requests, Joey they were not made to existing budgets. Only the truly naive can't grasp that governmental entities by their very nature always ask for more than they need knowing that they will invariably get a smaller amount approved. Lamb's testimony that budget cuts in no way affected security levels in Libya directly refutes your claim yet you continue to make it as if she'd testified in front of Congress and said under oath that budget cuts are why security was cut in Libya.

Yawn, guy, the point is, your party set down a concept of extreme austerity, in the middle of a recession, and then wondered why they didn't have adequate resources to defend a consulate.

i could care less what one bureaucrat says.

 

[JoeB131]

That's the synopsis that we never got from the Obama White House. Instead we were totally misled about a protest over a YouTube video that turned violent.

Uh, sorry, guy, they were really upset about the Video.

That's what happened. Now let's talk about WHY it was able to happen! Let's talk about WHY our diplomatic security was drawn down from 30 to 5 when conditions in Libya were by all accounts getting worse! The disregard for actual conditions on the ground in Libya by the Clinton State Department because they didn't like the "optics" of having an heavily armed security presence in Libya is ultimately why that consulate fell so easily. Then there is the total lack of preparedness for a military response on a day like 9/11 which also begs the question of WHY that was the case? On any OTHER date one might be excused for not being "ready" to respond...but on 9/11 you're caught with your pants around your ankles? Really? I mean REALLY???

you really think 25 extra guys spread across the country would have made a difference when there were THOUSANDS of rioters?

The Consulate fell because thousands of people attacked it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Those cuts were made to budget requests, Joey they were not made to existing budgets. Only the truly naive can't grasp that governmental entities by their very nature always ask for more than they need knowing that they will invariably get a smaller amount approved. Lamb's testimony that budget cuts in no way affected security levels in Libya directly refutes your claim yet you continue to make it as if she'd testified in front of Congress and said under oath that budget cuts are why security was cut in Libya.

Yawn, guy, the point is, your party set down a concept of extreme austerity, in the middle of a recession, and then wondered why they didn't have adequate resources to defend a consulate.

i could care less what one bureaucrat says.

Extreme austerity? They spent 17 BILLION on diplomatic security!!! The "one bureaucrat" you could care less about was the bureaucrat in charge of diplomatic security for Libya. She simply told the truth. Budget cuts had nothing to do with the security level in Libya. Those levels were set by the Clinton State Department who (as Lamb tesitfied to) were satisfied with what they had in place. So who's word would you take over hers?

 

[Oldstyle]

That's the synopsis that we never got from the Obama White House. Instead we were totally misled about a protest over a YouTube video that turned violent.

Uh, sorry, guy, they were really upset about the Video.

That's what happened. Now let's talk about WHY it was able to happen! Let's talk about WHY our diplomatic security was drawn down from 30 to 5 when conditions in Libya were by all accounts getting worse! The disregard for actual conditions on the ground in Libya by the Clinton State Department because they didn't like the "optics" of having an heavily armed security presence in Libya is ultimately why that consulate fell so easily. Then there is the total lack of preparedness for a military response on a day like 9/11 which also begs the question of WHY that was the case? On any OTHER date one might be excused for not being "ready" to respond...but on 9/11 you're caught with your pants around your ankles? Really? I mean REALLY???

you really think 25 extra guys spread across the country would have made a difference when there were THOUSANDS of rioters?

The Consulate fell because thousands of people attacked it.

Thousands? Did you wake up and smoke crack today, Joey? Or are you trying to nail down this year's "Dumbest Poster" award?

"Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault." Wikipedia.

Thousands?