HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I think there should be h...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:47 PM

I think there should be hearings on Benghazi

There are several legitimate unanswered questions.

One, did the consulate in Benghazi ask for more security only to be denied it? How far up the ladder was that request made? When was the request made? All of that is perfectly legitimate to be asked and if the administration messed this up it needs to be addressed.

Two, were prisoners being held in Benghazi by the CIA despite an executive order saying that the CIA wasn't supposed to be holding prisoners? Did the CIA do this and then lie about having done so causing the whole confusions as to the reason for the attack? If the CIA was holding prisoners in Benghazi were they holding prisoners in other places too?

Those are legitimate areas for oversight by Congress and the people deserve to know the answers to those questions.

156 replies, 7245 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 156 replies Author Time Post
Reply I think there should be hearings on Benghazi (Original post)
dsc Nov 2012 OP
BeyondGeography Nov 2012 #1
dsc Nov 2012 #5
BeyondGeography Nov 2012 #9
dsc Nov 2012 #12
Berlum Nov 2012 #20
dsc Nov 2012 #22
CreekDog Nov 2012 #138
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #97
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #127
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #133
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #134
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #43
Enrique Nov 2012 #2
BainsBane Nov 2012 #3
dsc Nov 2012 #11
Enrique Nov 2012 #14
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #4
ProSense Nov 2012 #6
dsc Nov 2012 #8
ProSense Nov 2012 #16
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #39
dsc Nov 2012 #50
Dems50State Nov 2012 #69
dsc Nov 2012 #72
Dems50State Nov 2012 #77
dsc Nov 2012 #115
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #103
CreekDog Nov 2012 #139
Patiod Nov 2012 #10
amandabeech Nov 2012 #67
Patiod Nov 2012 #84
amandabeech Nov 2012 #144
former-republican Nov 2012 #7
ceeRoy Nov 2012 #13
amandabeech Nov 2012 #76
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #15
dsc Nov 2012 #18
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #24
dsc Nov 2012 #25
amandabeech Nov 2012 #73
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #137
amandabeech Nov 2012 #145
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #146
amandabeech Nov 2012 #147
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #149
amandabeech Nov 2012 #151
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #152
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #110
Enrique Nov 2012 #27
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #28
Enrique Nov 2012 #30
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #33
dsc Nov 2012 #35
dsc Nov 2012 #31
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #86
dsc Nov 2012 #90
bluethruandthru Nov 2012 #102
quinnox Nov 2012 #17
hanzi88 Nov 2012 #19
dsc Nov 2012 #23
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #21
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #26
kelliekat44 Nov 2012 #29
EC Nov 2012 #32
dsc Nov 2012 #34
EC Nov 2012 #36
dsc Nov 2012 #37
ProSense Nov 2012 #38
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #41
dsc Nov 2012 #47
ProSense Nov 2012 #51
dsc Nov 2012 #52
ProSense Nov 2012 #53
dsc Nov 2012 #54
ProSense Nov 2012 #55
dsc Nov 2012 #56
ProSense Nov 2012 #64
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #66
CreekDog Nov 2012 #142
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #62
Dems50State Nov 2012 #68
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #74
Dems50State Nov 2012 #80
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #82
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #107
dsc Nov 2012 #116
CreekDog Nov 2012 #141
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #42
dsc Nov 2012 #46
spanone Nov 2012 #40
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #44
dsc Nov 2012 #48
NashvilleLefty Nov 2012 #45
HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #49
PufPuf23 Nov 2012 #57
dsc Nov 2012 #58
PufPuf23 Nov 2012 #61
ProSense Nov 2012 #65
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #70
dsc Nov 2012 #79
Dems50State Nov 2012 #81
dsc Nov 2012 #91
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #106
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #99
Autumn Nov 2012 #59
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #60
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #63
dsc Nov 2012 #71
ProSense Nov 2012 #75
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #93
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #78
Dems50State Nov 2012 #83
Puzzledtraveller Nov 2012 #85
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #108
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #87
Atticus Nov 2012 #88
dsc Nov 2012 #89
CreekDog Nov 2012 #113
Atticus Nov 2012 #114
dsc Nov 2012 #119
Atticus Nov 2012 #130
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #94
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #92
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #95
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #96
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #98
dsc Nov 2012 #100
Nye Bevan Nov 2012 #101
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #104
quinnox Nov 2012 #109
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #120
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #126
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #129
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #131
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #132
dsc Nov 2012 #117
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #125
CreekDog Nov 2012 #143
DirkGently Nov 2012 #105
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #112
DirkGently Nov 2012 #118
dsc Nov 2012 #121
DirkGently Nov 2012 #122
PufPuf23 Nov 2012 #136
Enrique Nov 2012 #111
backscatter712 Nov 2012 #123
dsc Nov 2012 #124
CreekDog Nov 2012 #135
dsc Nov 2012 #153
kenny blankenship Nov 2012 #150
2on2u Nov 2012 #128
pinboy3niner Nov 2012 #140
David Zephyr Nov 2012 #148
dsc Nov 2012 #154
ProSense Nov 2012 #155
RobertBlue Nov 2012 #156

Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:48 PM

1. Lindsey, is that you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:52 PM

5. No

I just happen to believe that we deserve to know what is going on. I have heard directly conflicting reports in regards to the prisoner issue for example. Did we have a rouge CIA that wasn't following orders? Was that CIA the motive for the attack? Did the CIA then lie about their conduct so that we were confused about the motive for the attack? It should be noted there is still some confusion as to the motive for the attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:00 PM

9. Why do you leave $300 million in GOP diplomatic security cuts off your list?

Lindsey would do that, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:03 PM

12. that is part and parcel

frankly I assumed an informed reader maybe that is assuming too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:13 PM

20. The Repubbies need to answer to why they left our Diplomats undefended, so they could

maintain Tax Breaks for fatcat Republicans.

How sick is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:18 PM

22. yes they do

that would be part and parcel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:40 PM

138. congressional hearings don't interrogate Senators and Congressman on why they did budget cuts

if you're saying that's part and parcel of your request --NO, that's not what your request was. Your request is what is in your OP and this is not included --nor is there precedent for having a congressional inquiry grill congresspeople on the legislation they all voted to approve.

i think you're confused, at best, you're confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:13 PM

97. Let's start with hearings on 9/11/01 and go from there, okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #97)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:50 PM

127. Ever read the report from the 9/11 Commission?

Democrats should just bring copies of that to the floor of the House and Senate and read it aloud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #127)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:43 PM

133. I'm not a fan of fiction (although I DO like true-crime stoires. Hmmmmm....). I HAVE read quite a

few, ahem, tin-foil-hat books on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #133)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:20 PM

134. Hmmm, so you haven't read it and assume it is a work of fiction?

Think about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:53 PM

43. +1,000

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:49 PM

2. yes, it's unfortunate the GOP is incapable of dong a credible one

Fast and Furious should have been investigated in a serious way too, but the GOP chose to be clowns about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:51 PM

3. exactly

They have the same intelligence reports on Benghazi that the White House received, yet they are still claiming Rice and POTUS liked. They have no credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:01 PM

11. last I checked we were in charge of the Senate

and though the GOP would get their own witnesses etc. we still could prevent a fast and furious type fiasco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:06 PM

14. good point, maybe the Senate will do an investigation

they might not do it because of politics (not wanting to embarrass Obama), or if there is something they dont want to get out, like for example if the CIA black site rumor is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:51 PM

4. I agree - it all needs to be examined.

Also, I can't wait to see Paul Broadwell testify about her knowledge of events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:53 PM

6. Wow, people are thinking like Fox now. OK

start here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021817223

Washington Post: Romney Immediately Regretted Benghazi Response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021751036

Republicans are deep in shit and their Benghazi meme is a distraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:56 PM

8. Fox didn't cause four people to die

Fox didn't cause us to not have any heavy weapons in position to try to save those four people. Fox didn't cause us to have competing narratives as to whether or not there were prisoners being held in Benghazi by the CIA. I am a huge Hilary supporter but I also think the chips should fall where they may. If she fucked this up, then she should be held accountable. If our CIA was rogue then it should be held accountable. Maybe this was an unavoidable tragedy. If so, then that is what an investigation would show. If not, then heads should roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:11 PM

16. Fuck Fox and the noise. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:42 PM

39. WTF?You actually wrote "If she fucked this up..." about Hillary Clinton?

What on earth would make you write such a thing?

This entire thread is toxic. What is your agenda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:28 PM

50. Because I think it is more important that we deserve to govern than the idea that we simply govern

Do I think Hilary blew this, no? Is it possible, yes? The fact is people died here and we still have little idea why. To have a CIA site interrogating prisoners with little to no protection of the site was down right stupid. And the evidence suggests that is exactly what was going on. My guess is that we had rogue CIA agents and maybe even higher level CIA personnel who are to blame but if we decide that hearings don't matter we will never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:53 PM

69. btw based off what you are assuming did you know

 

it is possible that Hillary Clinton asked for more Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems50State (Reply #69)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:13 AM

72. yes it is

again, I think facts are good things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #72)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:19 AM

77. Then why are you claiming she should take the fall for it

 

When if she asked for more Security Hillary Clinton did her job. You inserted down thread that Hillary Clinton Maybe to blame yet if she is on the record for asking help then you should not be blaming Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems50State (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:43 PM

115. we have no idea what she did or didn't do

since we haven't had any hearings. Frankly I highly doubt that she is at fault but it is a possibility. And if, implausible as it is, she ends up having some of the blame, then so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:29 PM

103. wow

I know, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:41 PM

139. if you're a fan of Hillary, I'd hate to see what a detractor would say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:00 PM

10. I'm of two minds about this

On one hand, the non-Fox press would have been all over this if there were a real issue. I'm an old Bartcop believer that "the liberal media" is anything but. It's all they've got, and they are going to try to make this into an impeachment issue because Obama is sure as hell not going to get caught with an intern or with his hand in the cookie jar, and if they can't vote him out, they'll try to pull a Clinton on him and undercut him with bullshit. Whitewater wasn't really anything, either, but they sure ran with it and distracted Clinton and the rest of the country with it.

On the other hand, if the hearings exposed some sort of CIA clusterfuckery under Petreaus, how badly does that hurt Obama? I don't know the answer to these questions - just thinking aloud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:50 PM

67. "Clusterfuckery" under Petreaus and whoever else was involved got four good men killed.

I don't want to see this repeated because of fear of the pubbies.

So the house will try to foil Obama. What else is new?

We do our investigation in the Senate.

I'd even be happy if the hearings were closed--at least there would be the possibility of improving the conditions under which our diplomats do the nation's business and maybe cleaning up yet another CIA clusterf---y.

Remember, four good men died serving their country.

Now, if we could just declare victory and get out of Afganistan, I'd be pleased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #67)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:51 AM

84. A Senate hearing would make sense

Some control over partisan nonsense and posturing, and maybe actual attempt to find out what really happened and if/how it might have been handled better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #84)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:06 PM

144. Silly me. In my wee hours rant I forgot that Sen. Feinstein is holding closed door

hearings starting today in the Foreign Relations Committee.

Wolfe just came on and said that the hearing was supposed to have adjourned for the day two hours ago and it appear that they will keep going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:56 PM

7. There's going to be and it's going to get ugly

 

This is all the republicans have .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:05 PM

13. Ok....

 

..as soon as they have some retroactive hearings of those issues that occurred during the murky 2 terms of Bush's presidency....like when he and Chaney chose to answer questions secretly in the oval office surrounding the outing of the CIA agent and the WMDs propaganda...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceeRoy (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:19 AM

76. I would have liked to have seen that when we controlled both houses of Congress.

However, Pres. Obama did not want to look back, remember? He didn't want to force consequences on people who got us into the Iraq mess, remember? The Pres. didn't want to roll back the Patriot Act and he gave us NDAA. It was very disappointing to some of us, obviously including you.

Why do you think that Reid will go against the President this time when he didn't during the past four years?

The lack of hearings wasn't and isn't just the pubbies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:10 PM

15. And ... was there a PDB stating "Terrorists plan to attack Ambasador in Benghazi??"

This is a CRITICAL question!!!!

As some others have noticed in other threads ... under Bush, and intelligence failure is a DEFENSE ... under Obama, an intelligence failure is a reason to investigate and perhaps IMPEACH.

Makes total sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:13 PM

18. probably not

If the CIA was interrogating prisoners in that consulate that sure would put an attack in prospective. Did the Ambassador know about this interrogation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:24 PM

24. Don't you mean "alleged Interrogation?"

And if it was happening, and he went to find out if it was happening, and to stop it, then what?

You argued that if the trail leads to Hillary, ok.

Why would a clandestine CIA action lead to her ... she was SOS, not the head of CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:28 PM

25. I think the security request might lead to her

not the interrogations, if there were interrogations. And yes, it could be that Stevens found out about them and wanted them stopped. We have no idea which is why there should be hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:13 AM

73. If anyone outside the CIA knew, it would most likely be Sec. Clinton.

Unless Amb. Rice remained involved after she, Clinton and Samantha power convinced the President to go in as a human rights intervention.

Rice went to Rwanda and saw the aftermath. Clinton probably feels guilty about the failure of Bill's administration to go in there. Power is a very active supporter of human rights as the guide for diplomatic and military action.

They probably saw Libya as a case in which they would not fail.

However, in Libya we may be dealing with people who may become our enemies later. Did anyone in the decision-making process understand that eastern Libya was a hotbed of radical Islam?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #73)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:33 PM

137. Libya was more than just a hotbed of radicals...

according to West Point studies, this area was the leading source of Al Qaeda-related fighters in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #137)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:11 PM

145. Yes, I recall reading that.

So . . . what were we doing in there giving them weapons, including shoulder to air rockets that could take down planes and helocopters.

Did the folks in charge not realize that those weapons might not be used up in the fight against Gadafi?

There are just so many questions about the whole Libyan situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #145)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:40 PM

146. The underlying 'conspiracy theory' against the neocons...


is that they utilize Al Qaeda as a necessary agent to bring about change in the Middle East. The principle themes of neoconservatism involve "creative destruction" and regime change. Originally we provided the Mujahadeen with arms to fight off the communists in Afghanistan. Then, when we suddenly pulled out, it left a vacuum, along with a lot of arms, where former CIA associates could then form the next major enemy of the United States. Recall that during the Reagan era, when the Cold War was coming to a close, one of the first initiatives in the Middle East involved bombing Libya to take care of Kadafi (also spelled Gaddafi, etc) Even at that time, neoconservative minded hawks wanted to bomb the hell out of Russia, and continue that initiative across the Soviet Union and Middle East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #146)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:00 PM

147. This time, I'm afraid that the object is to send arms to the folks fighting Assad in Syria.

However, there are suggestions that Amb. Rice, Sec. Clinton and Samantha Power were behind this push into Libya, largely because of the humanitarian aspect of Kadafi's war on the Islamists in Eastern Libya. With Rice (and I believe Clinton), her motivation may have its roots in the failure of the UN or US to go into Rwanda in the '90s to stop the killing. There's a few lines about this in Rice's Wiki.

I hate to see humanitarians start things that can be used by the Neocons (Hillary herself is something of a neocon) to further the neocon agenda.

What a mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #147)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:55 PM

149. This is an interesting article...



Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

...

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz2CLIsgQbZ


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #149)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:38 PM

151. Yes, I've seen that article, too.

This setup reminds me a little more of Iran-Contra.

Perhaps we are purchasing arms from Libyans, supposedly to try to get them off the market, particularly the portable anti-aircraft weapons.

Then those same weapons turn up in an area to which we are NOT supposed to be sending armaments.

There is a lot going on here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #151)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:51 PM

152. There's also speculation that....

arms may have gotten distributed to the wrong people, causing the Administration to cut back these shipments. This, in turn, may have pissed off Al Qaeda causing them to target Ambassador Stevens. I just posted this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101648095

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:49 PM

110. Talk about not grasping sarcasm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:36 PM

27. i'm glad they got to ask Condi Rice about that under oath

that's because they did an investigation, and they held hearings.

Almost everything we "know" about Benghazi is from anonymous sources, let's get some people under oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:55 PM

28. How long after 9/11/01 did she testify? Was it days, weeks, months, or years later?

And did the Bush administration make her available or did they try to prevent her from testifying under oath?

Those screaming loudest today, obstructed such investigations in the past. They are the ones with no credibility today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:00 PM

30. the memo was reported on in 2002

and it wasn't until 2004 that we got Condii's testimony. And yes as I remember it, the battle over the investigations between Bush and Congress was fairly epic, whether we would have them at all, who would testify, and whether they would be public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:05 PM

33. So maybe before anyone testifies before congress, the investigations

should be allowed to complete.

We've watched the GOP try to impeach a Dem President for a BJ ...

I can't think of a reason to let the GOP hold another impeachment trial because a Republican General and CIA Director who was also having an affair, might have provided limited and incorrect info to the the Obama administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:08 PM

35. I wouldn't want a GOP impeachment trial

but I sure would want public hearings about a CIA director providing limited and incorrect info to the administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:04 PM

31. frankly I think the way the GOP reacted to 9/11 was the beginning of the end for them

and conversely the way Obama reacted to the first debate is why he won. The GOP refused to find facts and thus didn't learn from their mistakes before 9/11. It is simply absurd that Bill Maher is the only person fired over 9/11. Rice should have been fired for sure. Rumsfeld maybe. Instead they doubled down on the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil policy and when Katrina happened the entire country saw just how badly run the government under Bush was. But remember Bush's aides had to make a DVD of Katrina coverage for him before he would acknowledge himself that he was naked. Conversely Obama looked at his own performance in the debate and recognized need for change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:57 AM

86. Talk show host Phil Donohue also may have bit the dust b/c of his opposition to

 

Operation Shocking and Awful before it began.

IIRC, his show had the highest ratings of any talk show but the network still dropped him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:17 AM

90. oh he got fired for Iraq

but that was later and not for 9/11. I don't recall him being opposed to Afghanistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:28 PM

102. +10000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:12 PM

17. We have to show we can be fair minded and if we made mistakes, we will not hide or

 

try and make excuses. Just because we are Democrats does not mean we can't make mistakes, and it shows us in a good light if we can show we will not overlook any mistakes we MAY have made. I am not opposed to a full investigation. The truth is important and unbiased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:13 PM

19. Will the facts be known? Look at Issa's hearing.

It's a political point-scoring witch hunt. Not a hearing at all. Only when the cloud & hysteria settles, then we'll have the facts, not more hearing theatrics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hanzi88 (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:19 PM

23. I would hope the Senate could do a more professional job than Issa

it would be hard to see anyone doing a less professional job than he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:16 PM

21. Hmm, it could go either way - throw gasoline on the fire, or cauterize this seeping wound.

I believe your questions are very, very valid however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:29 PM

26. I'm fine with hearings designed to get to the bottom of things.

Learn the facts, what went wrong and how to fix it. I'm not fine with politically-driven circus bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:58 PM

29. I agree with you 100 %. Let's learn all the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:04 PM

32. And if part of this is really

a CIA mission gone wrong, where we didn't even want them to know the CIA were there, we'd be exposing ops possibly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:06 PM

34. I have no problem with exposing illegal ops

which these would have apparently been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:43 PM

36. Why

would you assume they were illegal ops? They were likely there keeping tabs on the new government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:22 PM

37. We all know there was a CIA station there

thanks to the Issa hearings, the question now is did they have prisoners which they were not supposed to have under Obama's executive order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:35 PM

38. "thanks to the Issa hearings" You appear to be

a big fan of Issa:

Issa is right, we could have exact numbers of unemployed each month
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021515873

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:51 PM

41. "thanks to the Issa hearings"?

Unbelievable. Huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:17 PM

47. I am sorry you can't understand sarcasm

but the fact is the Issa hearings did expose our CIA station in Benghazi, something that was frankly a security breach for them to do, but it is done. As to your other issue this below, in bold, is the text you dishonestly decided not to quote. It was all of a paragraph and is the entire OP. You frankly quoted the way you did for one reason and one reason only, you counted on no one to actually click the link and instead rely on the title (which was clearly sarcastic as the part you purposely left out showed). Here is the text you left out.

All we would have to do is require each business to each month fill out a form stating exactly how many employees they have and how many hours they work. If we had no exceptions even for sole proprietorships then we would have exact numbers. Somehow I doubt he would go for this.

end of quote

You have no problem quoting paragraphs of text you want us to see so again there is only one reason you left out my text, it was to dishonestly suggest I am an Issa fan. You should be ashamed of your conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:32 PM

51. Wait,

Issa is right, we could have exact numbers of unemployed each month
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021515873

...was that "sarcasm" too?

Sorry, I don't buy bullshit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:36 PM

52. yes it was

as I just said. But when I call your quoting of me dishonest, rest assured that isn't sarcasm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:40 PM

53. Bullshit!

You need to look up the word "sarcasm" because none of your responses in that thread are sarcastic.

Speaking of "dishonest."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:50 PM

54. sorry you can't see that

but that isn't my fault, it is yours. If you can't see that the OP on unemployment numbers was sarcastic it says a whole lot more about you than about me. Just as your dishonest quote of me says a whole lot more about you than about me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:01 PM

55. Wow, you're

"Just as your dishonest quote of me says a whole lot more about you than about me."

...really trying hard to be insulting for someone who doesn't have all the facts straight.

"One, did the consulate in Benghazi ask for more security only to be denied it?"

That question, totally ridiculous. Where did you get that premise, Fox?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:09 PM

56. It has been reported, and not just by Fox, that there was a request for additional security

Now did they ask, or didn't they. Neither of us know. The fact is that security did suck but that isn't unusual for consulates. But apparently this wasn't just a consulate, it was also at least a CIA station, it may, or may not, have been a prison. Yes, I think we should know this. BTW here is dailykos reporting on the fact that a security request was made but decided against by a local commander. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/28/1151422/-BREAKING-NSC-Aide-Obama-Did-Not-Deny-Benghazi-Security-Requests

Now, hopefully that is the truth. I tend to believe it is since this administration has been honest. But I also think that hearings are not out of line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:45 PM

64. Nonsense. It's inaccurate crap.

That link does not support the BS claim that the security request was for Benghazi.

It's bullshit, and using it as the premise for an investigation is absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:50 PM

66. You are doing exactly what Issa did: mixing Benghazi with Tripoli. Why?

The requests were for Tripoli, not Benghazi. You are doing exactly what Issa did. Why is that? It is not true. Either you didn't know better when you wrote your OP and now you do know better, or you knew better and wrote it anyway.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, did not lie.

What are you up to with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #66)


Response to ProSense (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:42 PM

62. Exactly. The OP asserts the consulate requested security when it was the embassy.

Thank you. The Fox line (lies) intentionally conflates Benghazi with Tripoli. Fox News along with the entire Issa charade was to make it look like the request of extra security that was requested by the "embassy" in Tripoli and that was turned down somehow magically (falsely) was a request from the consulate in Benghazi. It never happened.

The OP is just wrong and further propagates that falsehood (hopefully in innocence, but regardless it is not true) and is, as you posted above, is the very same message right out of Fox Nation.

It is obvious that the GOP wants to impeach President Obama and the Issa "hearings" were the first step. This is the Monica/Whitewater shit all over again.

I am very disappointed to see this here in a thread at the DU just days after our President won re-election after billions of lies and blatant racist shit was hurled at him.

ProSense, all of this Benghazi crap including John McCain's request for a "Watergate" investigation is all to set up a fishing expedition just like they did with Bill Clinton when they morphed Whitewater into sex. It's about impeachment and I smell it and I don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #62)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:50 PM

68. the sad thing is unless you pay attention to politics news

 

you do not know the Lies. It is easy to get away with what this person is doing because a newbie like me may not know the true story. The only reason I know is I read sites and watch the news on other stations other then fox. It can easily mislead someone who doesn't pay attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems50State (Reply #68)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:16 AM

74. Welcome to the DU.

First,

There is already a massive effort to bring down President Obama's presidency as they did with Bill Clinton.

The Issa hearings were a disgrace and he cut off every witness who tried to explain that the "requests" for additional security had been for the embassy in Tripoli which were turned down and they were apparently not needed. Fox and all continue to press that those requests had been for the consulate in Benghazi and they knowingly are conflating the two maliciously. And there is a very big difference. Why some seem bent on continuing that falsehood (here of all places) is disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:22 AM

80. I look at it this way

 

If there had been something there then it would have come out in the first one. Republicans were determine to win at any cost. If they had some big evidence it would have come out during the Election. It failed and Obama has handled the matter. The person is calling to upset what Obama is doing. This dsc isn't even allowing the President the respect to conduct his own means. I trust the President and I think he can do a better job then this dsc thinks giving it to a congress would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems50State (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:26 AM

82. And I trust President Obama, too.

And I'm proud that he is my President. I like you, Dems50State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:42 PM

107. There's a skill to writing sarcasm. Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #107)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:44 PM

116. and there is a skill to reading too

just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:49 PM

141. apparently, you want the Issa thing to happen again, your sarcasm notwithstanding

in fact, it doesn't even fly that you were being sarcastic, when a post or two later, you are saying you want something just like that.

oy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:52 PM

42. What is this thread about? "Thanks to the Issa hearings..."

"Thanks to the Issa hearings..." Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:11 PM

46. gee I guess some people are unable to understand sarcasm

the fact is the Issa hearings did expose our station there so yes thanks to the Issa hearings we now know that the CIA had a station in Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:45 PM

40. don't worry, there will be. and they'll be partisan. and the reTHUGS will be looking for a 'gotcha'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:54 PM

44. There are plenty of DUers who, "robbed" of their "I Told You So" moment on "One-Term Obama"

will gladly side with the worst of the GOP if their weird hatred for Obama can be sated that way.

Plenty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:19 PM

48. we control the Senate last time I checked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:09 PM

45. Although I agree that ALL attacks

upon US Embassies should be investigated, I oppose using ANY of them for political reasons as Benghazi has become.

There should be Congressional hearings on ALL attacks on US Embassies including the multiple attacks and deaths during the Bush Administration, not just Benghazi.

It has been established that the requests for additional security was for a separate facility, not for Benghazi. Or haven't you been reading the blurbs?

There was a CIA establishment near the Embassy which appears to have been the major target and the Embassy appears to have been collateral damage. Despite the CIA secrecy, since non-CIA agents were killed we should know.

This is a classical example of a cluster-fuck. Much of what happened will never come to light since it is CIA related. But it did result in the deaths of 4 American Civilians. It comes down to the CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:19 PM

49. I doubt that the second question can be answered honestly and publicly.

1) It goes to practices and methods of the CIA. Those must always be protected and so cannot be addressed publicly.

2) The US cannot confirm its US Diplomatic facilities are sometimes CIA prisons. This would result in the populations of host countries objecting to US diplomatic presence. Consequently, the answer will always be denial of the use of diplomatic facilities to hold foreign prisoners whether that is true or not.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:13 PM

57. What if it is a rogue military and CIA scandal that is a failed GOP October Surprise?

What if Susan Rice made comments based upon dummied up CIA input meant to make POTUS Obama look bad?

If Petraeus, Allen, et al are tied to Romney, Rove, and GOP dirty tracksters, they should go down hard and deep and comprehensive.

Broadwell's public statements about CIA prisoners in Benghazi tie a neat little bow.

Recall Ollie North "leading" Carter's failed hostage rescue and Iran-Contra in general?

IMHO their should be a number of military and CIA folks on administrative leave and confined to quarters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:15 PM

58. apparently most people here think it should be swept under the rug

The fact is I think the CIA is up to their neck in this but apparently we should just let things go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:41 PM

61. I agree with you about CIA and would add that the CIA appears to

have tried to kneecap POTUS Obama on behalf of the GOP by being rogue and knowingly giving false info to the WH and DOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:49 PM

65. No one is saying anything should be "swept under the rug"

The OP is being called out for a series of questions based on inaccurate information.

You're calling for a witchhunt. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:10 AM

70. I agree. It is a call for a witch hunt.

Thank you, again. And that witch hunt has already begun with the sole intent to create a fishing expedition and weigh down the President like they did President Clinton with one goal: impeachment.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting some "truth". It's about taking down the President.

I won't stand for it. Not here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:22 AM

79. yes a Senate investigation would be a witch hunt

after all we lost control of the Senate, no wait we didn't. The fact is we have no idea what the information is or isn't. We do know that a lightly defended consulate was attacked with four deaths. We do know that the CIA had a substation there. Were they interrogating prisoners? There is some evidence they were, I would like to know. In a Democracy we have a right to know. BTW forgot for a moment who I am addressing, the subject line is sarcasm since apparently you need to be told that every time it is used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #79)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:24 AM

81. Do you have no respect for the President?

 

Obama has said he is conducting investigation into the matter. Let the President handle it he knows what he is doing. Do you not trust Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems50State (Reply #81)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:25 AM

91. Yes, unlike you, I have enough respect for the President to trust that hearings would show he did

his job. I love the president like an adult, not a child. If mistakes were made, then I think we deserve to know them. It is Congress' job to investigate this stuff. We control the Senate. If for no other reason than the House will conduct hearings, the Senate should conduct hearings that will hopefully not be in the control of partisan hacks. At the very least we had a very lightly protected CIA substation in what was known to be at best, potentially hostile territory. Is that usual? If it is usual, is it wise? Did we bother to tell the state department that we were using its consulate as a CIA substation? Were they, or were they not, interrogating prisoners? Sorry but I don't trust the CIA to be honest about this stuff. Jesus could be the President and I still wouldn't trust the CIA to give me the correct time of day in a room full of clocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #91)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:40 PM

106. "Hearings" in any Administration mean "What did the President do wrong?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:20 PM

99. I recall the TRAITOR North well. I think you are spot on about the intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:23 PM

59. If it gets to the CIA I am all for it.

I really think that is where the screw up happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:24 PM

60. Four Americans died during a dangerous job...

 

Such is the symptoms of having an empire.

Hearing over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:45 PM

63. Why are you conflating Benghazi with Tripoli?

The security request was for Tripoli. You know that. And yet you conflate it into Benghazi. What are you up to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:11 AM

71. among other things the security would tend to go with the Ambassador

who was in Benghazi. Second, there is some evidence that Benghazi also asked for security (had they known about the CIA prison, if it existed, one would imagine they may have wanted it even more). The fact is we have no earthly idea want went on. Was the CIA running a rogue operation? Did they lie after the attack to protect the rogue operation? What we do know is that we have a very lightly protected consulate (not a surprise since most are) that got invaded with disasterous results. That consulate was home to a major CIA substation. That substation may, or may not, have been interrogating prisoners. Any such interrogations would have been in violation of an executive order issued by Obama. Now, silly me, I think it is important to know if the CIA is, or is not, violating executive orders. Now, silly me, I think it is important to know if indeed security was, or was not asked for. The GOP refused to investigate 9/11, then refused to investigate Iraq, then refused to investigate Katrina. Each mistake they refused to investigate or acknowledge, lead to bigger mistakes, which eventually lead to them being tossed out on their ears. That is what happens when you refuse to investigate mistakes. Thankfully, Obama understands that concept given his reaction to the first debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #71)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:16 AM

75. Now, you're just making stuff up.

"Second, there is some evidence that Benghazi also asked for security (had they known about the CIA prison, if it existed, one would imagine they may have wanted it even more)."

It's like a collection of RW talking points.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #75)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:08 PM

93. He dodged your post.

As you pointed out, he wrote this: ""Second, there is some evidence that Benghazi also asked for security". No proof at all to support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #71)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:20 AM

78. Your OP wrongly implied that the security requests had been for Benghazi.

And you are still doing it. What's up with you?

Lindsey Graham, John McCain and you are wanting investigations into Benghazi days after President Obama was re-elected. This isy our burning issue right now?

And you continue to conflate Benghazi with Tripoli. So you intend to continue to do this when you know it is false. I didn't need to read that falsehood at the DU, I can hear it on Fox and from Rush Limbaugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Zephyr (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:26 AM

83. Not only that the person is jumping from CIA to blaming Hillary Clinton

 

After confusing the two security issues dsc is trying to confuse who is in control of it. One minute it is the CIA fault the next it is Hillary Clinton who did something wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:54 AM

85. If it were a republican administration we would be calling for heads.

But I support hearings not for that reason but as the OP states, and at the least in all that I despise being a hypocrite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #85)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:45 PM

108. Maybe Obama should insist on having Biden testify in the same room, same time? NOT under oath? THOSE

kinds of hearings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:00 AM

87. I agree. I want those two questions answered and let the chips fall

 

where they may.

I simply cannot believe the pushback you're receiving on this thread from the die-hard Dem partisans. Their obstinance just makes it look like we have something to hide.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, if the CIA has gone rogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:10 AM

88. Both questions have been answered:

No one requested help and there were no prisoners being held.

That's according to the CIA.

Do we really want to subject CIA personnel to an inquisition before twits like Lindsey and Gramps?

Links? See other posts on DU or---"Google is your friend".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #88)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:13 AM

89. that would be the CIA whose right wing general head

had to resign due to having an affair. It would be the CIA whose job it is to lie. That is the CIA whose word we should trust with no investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:52 PM

113. how many CIA agents do you want to out to ask your questions?

just wondering.

then we can all pay to send their families into hiding too, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:39 PM

114. Oh, yeah---I guess you're right.

EVERYONE trusts Graham and McCain. No sour grapes or political axes to grind there!
Veritable fountains of truth and integrity and sound judgment! After all, John is the man who gave us SARAH! Who wouldn't want him to ramrod this investigation.

By the way, is Cheney busy? He could help us poor Democrats straighten this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #114)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:49 PM

119. well last I checked neither Graham nor McCain are in charge of any Senate committee

I trust Boxer and Feinstein and Brown to do their jobs. And I can think of damn few elected Dems that I trust less than I trust Patreus and the CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #119)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:23 PM

130. I don't trust Patreus or the CIA either. But, I also don't trust ANY Republican.

They are calling for "Watergate style hearings" and that is, IMHO, ridiculous overkill and indicative of their true intent: smearing "that one".

We are allies. Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #88)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:08 PM

94. Actually, the question about whether the CIA was holding prisoners goes

 

to the heart of the issue.

The CIA can deny it was holding them, but who in this day and age would believe one word coming out of the self-same CIA that committed fraud on the American people with regard to WMDs in Iraq?

Only when it denies it under penalty of perjury will the CIA's denial carry much weight, imho. That's why a hearing where its officers are sworn in under penalty of perjury is now the only acceptable way to satisfy the questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:31 AM

92. An ambassador was murdered.

Of course there should be hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #92)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:09 PM

95. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:11 PM

96. Where is your proof for your assertion above?

You posted the following above: ""there is some evidence that Benghazi also asked for security". Even Fox News has not said that. Did you just make it up, as one poster asked, or do you have some classified breaking news to support your statement?

Proof or made up? Which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:18 PM

98. How about: What was the Ambassador doing there, anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #98)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:22 PM

100. If we don't already know that

then yes, that would be fair game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:23 PM

101. Obviously there should be some kind of inquiry or hearings.

But how about a Warren Commission type of inquiry as opposed to one run by the Republicans in Congress? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a respected nonpartisan person chairing the inquiry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:32 PM

104. Very shocked at this OP

And other posts by the OP regarding President Obama and SoS Clinton.

Just

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #104)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:46 PM

109. what are you saying

 

expand on your reaction, if you would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #109)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:50 PM

120. He Or She Said It All. I Don't think He Or She Needs To Elucidate Further/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #120)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:48 PM

126. She -- and thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #126)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:54 PM

129. The Radical Republicans Are Trying Turn A Garden Variety Tragedy Into 9-11 Or Pearl Harbor/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #129)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:24 PM

131. That is the perfect title for them

That's what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #131)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:27 PM

132. Except The Original "Radical Republicans" Were Trying To Do The Right Thing/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #104)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:46 PM

117. ah get the fainting couch

for your are so shocked. Yes, I think that the executive, even a Democratic one, should be accountable to the public and their representatives, so shocking. But if you want an out of control CIA then fine live with it. but don't come crying when that CIA decides to gore your ox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #117)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:47 PM

125. "get teh fainting couch"?! Really, you of all people are saying that to me?

Wow. Just wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #117)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:52 PM

143. why won't you answer WHY you are mixing Tripoli with Benghazi as Issa and Fox News have?

why why why why why?

are you trying to mislead people here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:39 PM

105. "Please proceed." Republicans should be careful what they wish for here.

At the presser yesterday, when Obama was defending Ambassador Rice from McCain, et al's bullshit, he was very clear he's happy to look into and talk about Benghazi. Perhaps VERY happy.

They should stop and think about that.

The big point the Republicans seem to think they can push is that Rice and the administration at first focused on the attack as being a spontaneous part of the 9/11 anti-Muslim film protests, vs. a planned terrorist attack.

It's all pretty stupid, because there's no reason for the administration to have been deliberately deceptive about it -- the most you could say is that information developed, which is exactly what you'd expect. Protest or planned attack, it doesn't matter whether they knew it on Day One or two weeks later. It's an investigation. There's no "gotcha" for not having it exactly right immediately.

Morever, the source of the talking points Rice gave, which the Republicans are trying to bash her over the head with -- was the CIA, not the administration.

So, whether someone was initially wrong, or learned as the investigation proceeded, or "lied" as the Republicans and rightwing pundits want to suggest, it wasn't Obama doing it. It was the CIA, which leaves Petraeus responsible.

They won't like that. Republicans love Petraeus -- he supposedly proved we could "win" in Iraq with the "surge" strategy that really wasn't, and really didn't. Discrediting him sucks for them.

Further, as for the connected sex scandal, apparently a conservative-minded FBI agent pushed it when it didn't really meet the standards of "cybercrime," then took it to Cantor, hoping it would hurt Obama somehow. But Cantor mysteriously sat on the scandal. Why?

In their frantic attempt to create a scandal right before the election, Republicans may have committed themselves to a course that will embarrass them, not the administration. I think Obama may know that. As Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, he had the same look on his face; used the same tone, as when he encouraged Romney to "proceed" when he stepped in it vis a vis Benghazi.

It ain't exactly 12-dimensional chess, but I think Obama's letting them outsmart themselves the same way he let Romney commit on the Rose Garden speech. They're rushing to open a can of worms, without thinking about what may come out and bite them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #105)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:52 PM

112. Or he's a darn good bluffer! ;-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #112)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:46 PM

118. They may think that, but it seems unlikely.


The main problem is there's no good underlying conspiracy narrative to start with. What are they even trying to suggest? That the administration had good warning of an impending attack and ignored it, then tried to blame the protest?

There's no obvious basis for a theory like that, except assuming Obama is bad, bad, bad. That's enough for rightwingers, obviously, but it's going to shrivel and die in the light of day.

And I don't think Obama's a particularly good bluffer. He's telegraphed all of his compromises with the Republicans pretty clearly, for example. The administration is perfectly happy to try to lay down carefully vague language when it's trying to float something it doesn't necessarily want to cop to.

I don't think he'd react to a genuine "gotcha" moment with his very rare anger and this kind of push-back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #105)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:50 PM

121. wonder if you will be attacked like I was

somehow I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #121)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:12 PM

122. Respectfully, I don't think we're saying the same thing.


Your OP could be interpreted as agreeing with the Republicans' disingenuous insinuation that Obama lied about the attack to cover up some failure of the administration, which is a specious claim. They're acting like he invented the protests or crafted the CIA talking points, which is ludicrous.

I agree Broadwell's little boast about militant prisoners raises an issue, but that, like the overall explanation of the attack, would again fall in Petraeus' lap, not Obama's.

I don't think we need an investigation into whether Obama deliberately mislead the country -- there's no reason to think that.

What I think is that the Republicans' frantic efforts to find a narrative here with which to bash Obama will either fall flat, or blowback on Petraeus. It could also open up the very interesting issue of why Eric Cantor sat on Petraeus' sex scandal all through the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #105)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:30 PM

136. Good post. IMHO an investigation would bite the CIA and GOP

Why did Cantor and the Rep-R from Washington state before DiFi and the WH?

Why did Romney jump the gun so fast and furious and then retreat?

Why did neocon Petraeus's gal pal talk about prisoners at CIA in Benghazi publically prior to the incident?

Good sentence in a nutshell:

In their frantic attempt to create a scandal right before the election, Republicans may have committed themselves to a course that will embarrass them, not the administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:20 PM

123. The right-wingers will only use these hearings to create a circus.

They're spreading the lie that Obama and his administration lied about the attacks, and they're going to do nothing but continually accuse everyone involved.

If there's going to be an investigation, it should be an honest one. And the GOP is completely incapable of honesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #123)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:22 PM

124. Like it or not the congress is all we have

and Democrats are in charge of the Senate last I checked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #124)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:25 PM

135. I don't actually think you want to learn anything about the topic

because nothing has ever, ever been learned in a congressional hearing, ever.

studies, sure.

investigations, frequently.

inquiries, why not.

but Senate hearings? whatever you are going on about that you *must* know, you sure as hell know that you won't be hearing or learning those things in a Senate hearing. you will hear a lot of lies and demogogery but if you really want to learn the facts of what happened --which finding out is not as simple as you make it sound, if you want to learn those facts, a Senate hearing won't provide that for you.

so i don't know what the hell you want, because what you say you want makes no sense in light of what you're asking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #135)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:15 AM

153. two things

First as to hearings never mattering. The Church hearings in the 1970's managed to clean up the CIA for a time. Sadly they didn't stick but they did expose many things we didn't know were going on and probably kept the CIA clean for the rest of the 1970's. The Watergate hearings caused Nixon to resign and put in many laws that kept our politics relatively clean for decades. Now, would these hearings have that kind of effect, probably not? But if it at least got the CIA on the record as to prisoner interrogation that would be a start.

The simple fact is that the Congress is the body that is given the power, and the responsibility, to check both the excesses and the messes of the executive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #124)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:04 PM

150. Now do you see the futility of working in/with the system?

These are the self-appointed good cops you're trying to talk to. The self-described "reasonable people", who believe themselves to be "reality based" and respectful of facts and truth. And they're not one bit different.

They have their own truthiness, buster, and you just pissed all over it. Prepare to fry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:52 PM

128. I wanna know what McCain and Graham knew and when they knew it. Seems fair to me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:41 PM

140. I think the GOP should hold hearings IN Benghazi. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #140)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:24 PM

148. LOL.

I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:19 AM

154. since it has been asked multiple times I will respond to the request for security in Benghazi here

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened.
It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

end of quote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #154)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:32 AM

155. That doesn't support your claim.

From the OP: "One, did the consulate in Benghazi ask for more security only to be denied it?"

This article attempts to spin more noice, but it wasn't denied

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.


Also, there are hearings ongoing on the issue:

Clinton To Testify On Benghazi Attacks In December
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021826114

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:43 AM

156. Whatever. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread