Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

misled with talking points before elections?

Bengazi 2013 white house

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:28 PM

this witchhunt will never die, oh my, what with not only Congress, also the name brand press, also the right wing
radio and cable talking heads, but,
but,
I want to bring up a point/issue, quesiton, here-

when you are in an election, weeks off, short time, and you look as all campagns do on damage control, on spin, on protect,
because hey if you are out then what can you do after good or not?

so this part right here,
' There's a meatpacking-like quality to all this. You don't really want to know how your hamburger is processed, do you? The administration's defense — and it's looking thinner than ice on a late spring pond — is that government bureaucracy is messy and multi-layered and that's a big part of why Rice said what she did.
Benghazi occurred seven weeks before election day. The administration's strategy was simple: Downplay the terror attack, change the narrative, and run out the clock. And that's what it did. '

So let's just _devil advocate_ here, and for Chat Sake say that's what
they did, and my question is this:
do we want our incumbent election party to be at disadvantage?
because fiduciary responsibility to US nation outweighs election tactics, manoeuvering, protecting, even coverups? so the challenge
party can do all and any because they have no service to the public, but the incumbent hands tied in campagn because of they key
priority, the duty to We The People?

I think, of course they changed narrative, ran out the clock, as any good campagn will do, but then 'misled the people'? of course they did
what the challenge party would do, but now they can posture:
OH See what terrible disservice they did to the People??

so should the one party have disadvantage and the other none because
of the incumbent position of duty? the one side has, the other side has none?

http://news.yahoo.co...-111500947.html

read orig story in The Week,
http://theweek.com/b...sts-on-benghazi
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#2 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:37 PM

My answer to the above is this...I just want the truth, whatever it may be, regardless of which party is inconvienced by it.

Of course that will never, ever, happen in politics...especially the politics America has today.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#3 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:57 PM

[Tom Cruise]  I want the TRUTH.  [/Tom Cruise]
Posted Image

#4 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:07 PM

On one hand, I wouldn't be surprised if an administration (or some element thereof) changed talking points for political purposes. I'd be mildly irritated, but not surprised. If that was the only consequence, I'd be interested to know it. But I'd also say Congres is wasting a huge amount of time when they have actual work to do. Since the GOP House has a history of abusing their power to embarrass Democrat presidents for politilcal ends, I really can't trust them. When they describe a former Ambassador as refusing to testify at their hearings, and then that ambassador comes out saying he wanted to and was told they didn't want him, their credibility is pretty well shot.

If there's going to be an investigation, it needs to be independent. Congress can't be trusted to handle it. What's Ken Star up to these days?

Can we perhaps get a structured rundown of the actual, distinct accusations, and the evidence for/against each?

#5 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:44 PM

I don't want to give much credence to as a scandal, but some things do come to mind.  It's not at the level of a scandal, but DC is so broken, they manufacture scandals now-a-days.

I believe they changed the talking points too, but not for the reasons Republicans in Congress suggest.

I think this whole thing illustrates just how much distance there is between the WH and Clinton's State Department.  I doubt much talking was done at all between the WH and Foggy Bottom.  Which also doesn't surprise me.  I think Obama gave her State and shuffled her off on one thing or another, but never really let her in.  I don't think the kind of animosity that came out during the 2008 primary season gets forgotten.  At least I don't think Obama forgets.  I think perhaps Clinton is more pragmatic than Obama.  Obama doesn't form any political relationships at all if he doesn't like someone.  It is his real Achilles heel when it comes to his political expertise. It's his problem with Congress, and I believe his problem with State under Clinton.

Clinton is responsible for the vulnerability of Benghazi in the first place.  But, then she has already admitted that, and said so in hearings to Congress.  It doesn't matter about the funds being cut, although that certainly contributes to the problem.  Benghazi was a high risk area and State failed to protect it sufficiently   That's on Clinton  but like I said, she already said as much.

Whoever ordered the military to stand down and not go to Benghazi, it wasn't Clinton.  She has no power to order the military to do anything.  No military commander would take such an order from her, or he'd be Court Marshaled.  If there was an order to stand down, then it came from Defense or the CIA, or the WH. So, all the fervor about it ALL being Clinton's fault is outright politicization and an attempt to set the stage for her possible run at the WH.  She did not order anyone to stand down.

Think about that for a minute.  We do not know what happened and there was no testimony about where the order to stand came from. [Yes I watched the entire hearing], and Clinton could not have done it.

Testimony told us that the talking points that were prepared by the CIA were edited several times, and that State when bonkers about some of the talking points.  No one has thought about what this really means, but here is what I'm guessing.

I think the CIA proposed talking points that took the heat off them and put it on State.  Again showing the division between the WH and State imo.  I think State flipped out when they saw they were being thrown under the bus and edited again.  I believe all of this is an inter-agency problem, and a reflection of how Obama runs his Administration.  I think the WH wanted the focus on State due to the election, and because Hillary was known to be resigning at the end of his term.

I think this is the real source of the different stories and the incredibly bad handling of the media and the public statements after Benghazi.  I don't think there is a scandal here, unless the fact that Obama and Clinton still hate each other is a scandal.  Obama wanted to get re-elected.  Hillary was leaving anyway.  I do not think Obama cares about what Democrats do after he is out of office.  I don't think he cares about making enemies.  if he did, we'd have a completely different dynamic between him and Congress.

I also think that Republicans don't care about going after Obama, which makes it all the better for the WH version of events.  All republicans want is to make this an issue that will stick, because it's probably the only relatively new think to litigate where Clinton is concerned.  All the rest is such old news, and they need a recent scandal [whether true or not] to hit her if she runs in 2016.

No one really cares about the truth, just where they can get the blame to stick, and preferably on Clinton.

Additionally, I have no clue what kind of pressure was put on State, but the truth is the emergency handling of Benghazi after the attack began was not State's call at all.

To summarize.

State is responsible for the reduced protection.

The CIA and Defense [WH] are responsible for any order top stand down.

The talking points were first written by the CIA, and basically were all about throwing State under the Bus.  probably because they had intelligence that Benghazi might be hit and didn't do anything about it.

State freaked out because the talking points were throwing them under the bus and they pushed back.

Clinton is the probable candidate in 2016, and Republicans want to get an early start.

It's all pretty simple if you understand the players.

It's still not a scandal.  It's a tragedy to be sure.  A terrible tragedy, and people should lose their jobs over it, both in State and the CIA.  But, all anyone is doing here, the players, Congress, the news media, is being political.  Everyone is looking out for themselves.  EVERYONE.  

There's my theory....

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#6 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 12:38 AM

View PostCait, on 11 May 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

I think the CIA proposed talking points that took the heat off them and put it on State.  Again showing the division between the WH and State imo.  I think State flipped out when they saw they were being thrown under the bus and edited again.  I believe all of this is an inter-agency problem, and a reflection of how Obama runs his Administration.  I think the WH wanted the focus on State due to the election, and because Hillary was known to be resigning at the end of his term.
I don't think we need to postulate some bad blood between Clinton and Obama to make sense of the tension. After all, it was the CIA that wrote the talking points the State Department objected to, and the White House that insisted the CIA address their concerns. This isn't about personal politics; its about a turf battle between the diplomats and the spooks.

It looks to me like the problem was that American interests in Benghazi were primarily the purview of the CIA, but the level of their involvement was supposed to be a secret. (Hence the early muddled talk about the "annex" that was actually a CIA safehouse.) Thus, the CIA basically wanted the talking points to say, "Hey, we knew about all these threats," but they were protected from having to say, ". . . and we were kind of in charge of addressing those threats." So it ended up looking like the State Department was solely responsible from acting on the CIA intelligence and had failed to do so, which is not an impression the State Department would think it fair for the talking points to give.

In any event, I agree that it doesn't constitute a scandal. If anything, the editorial history of the talking points dismantles the central aspect of the "cover-up" allegations, which is that the White House fabricated a connection to the anti-Muslim video for . . . some reason I've never really understood. It's clear that the purported video connection was part of the intelligence assessment all along, even before the State Department supposedly started editing the statement to protect the administration. Are we to believe that the president invented that part of the story and inserted it into the talking points at an undocumented earlier stage, but then had to go back and re-edit them through a State Department proxy to scrub other elements they didn't bother to screw with the first time?

Edited by Dev F, 12 May 2013 - 12:48 AM.


#7 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:08 AM

Interestingly, here's a Wall Street Journal article from back in November that suggests that the whole situation in Benghazi may have been the result of a dysfunctional relationship between the CIA and the State Department:

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said. . . .

In Libya, the relationship between the State Department and CIA was secret and symbiotic: The consulate provided diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations. The State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security, although a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA didn't have the same understanding about its security responsibilities. . . .

Outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, the nature of the security relationship between the consulate and the annex wasn't widely known, and details about that arrangement are still the subject of dispute. The night of the attack, many top officials at the State Department in Washington weren't initially aware that the annex had a security force that answered to the CIA and provided backup security for the consulate.

Edited by Dev F, 12 May 2013 - 01:09 AM.


#8 ShotenStar

ShotenStar

    Collector of Silly Mares

  • Islander
  • 182 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:54 AM

Personally, I find the whole "The Talking Points Were Rewritten" argument entertaining .... I spent 27 years in Federal service.  Rewriting Talking Points is a favorite bureaucratic indoor sport.

Of course State and CIA have different views and different agendas they want presented in Talking Points.

*star*
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams

#9 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:04 AM

View PostCait, on 11 May 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

Whoever ordered the military to stand down and not go to Benghazi, it wasn't Clinton.  She has no power to order the military to do anything.  No military commander would take such an order from her, or he'd be Court Marshaled.  If there was an order to stand down, then it came from Defense or the CIA, or the WH. So, all the fervor about it ALL being Clinton's fault is outright politicization and an attempt to set the stage for her possible run at the WH.  She did not order anyone to stand down.

The answer I heard about this is that the only forces that could have gotten to Benghazi were defending the embassy at Tripoli, and pulling them out would have weakened that defense. Weakening the embassy's defenses when another diplomatic outpost has already been attacked could be falling for a classic diversion attack. Not sending those troops could easily have been the correct military decision based on the information at hand. Politics need not enter into it.

#10 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:40 AM

View PostDev F, on 12 May 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

Interestingly, here's a Wall Street Journal article from back in November that suggests that the whole situation in Benghazi may have been the result of a dysfunctional relationship between the CIA and the State Department:

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said. . . .

In Libya, the relationship between the State Department and CIA was secret and symbiotic: The consulate provided diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations. The State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security, although a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA didn't have the same understanding about its security responsibilities. . . .

Outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, the nature of the security relationship between the consulate and the annex wasn't widely known, and details about that arrangement are still the subject of dispute. The night of the attack, many top officials at the State Department in Washington weren't initially aware that the annex had a security force that answered to the CIA and provided backup security for the consulate.

WOW, thanks for adding this.  I didn't know any of this.  It basically does underscore my feelings though.  State and the CIA were not cooperating departments.  You're right, I don't have to go for animosity between individuals when long standing animosity between departments fits the bill.  However, I still believe that  the failure of this Administration to forge relationships outside of the WH is a problem when it comes to effective governance and national security.  But, that's not a scandal either, only a criticism of Obama and his way of governing.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#11 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:34 PM

Quote

I don't want to give much credence to as a scandal, but some things do come to mind.  It's not at the level of a scandal, but DC is so broken, they manufacture scandals now-a-days.
In a sane world...the supernatural level of incompetence necessary for the 9/11 Benghazi incident to have occurred exactly the way it did, would be enough scandal to permanently shame 0bama, Hillary, and every one of the major media sycophants who helped to bury this story before election day.  The lengths these individuals took to ensure blame was directed everywhere but where it belonged, takes it to the level of outright criminality. I realize Omega's "well the GOP is EVIL" defense goes a long way with the hard left, I'll bet there are still a few liberals out there with enough integrity to be embarrassed by this current administration. These are not people worthy of our respect.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#12 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 11:36 PM

Defense? I just said the GOP wasn't competent or trustworthy to investigate it. I made it quite clear someone should. Of course, you've said before that you're not here for conversation, so I just point this out in case any other readers happen to get confused by your misrepresentation of my post. :)

#13 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:41 AM

Quote

Defense? I just said the GOP wasn't competent or trustworthy to investigate it.
The past week's revelations of grotesque administration cover-ups and lethal incompetence...are just another occasion to blast the Republican Party.

Not surprising...but still terribly sad and depressing.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#14 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:30 AM

View Postscherzo, on 13 May 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

Quote

Defense? I just said the GOP wasn't competent or trustworthy to investigate it.
The past week's revelations of grotesque administration cover-ups and lethal incompetence...are just another occasion to blast the Republican Party.

Not surprising...but still terribly sad and depressing.

Why do Republicans always play the victim?  I'm being serious here.  Why?  It's so weak in way too many ways.  See, I'd agree with you as a citizen about the competence of the Administration here.  Hell, I'm probably angrier than you are because I actually sat through those damn hearings and can never get those hours back.  I love watching the Representatives pontificating and maybe asking one relevant question.  It makes my day.   But why interject the, oh "This is just another occasion for Republican Bashing".  When you reduce any and all criticism to that, you not only play the victim card, you miss the point.  [a point many liberals miss in exactly the same manner btw.]  It's not always about just taking aim at the nearest Republican.  Sometimes, there is legitimate criticism.  If you can separate the wheat from the shaft, how do you function politically?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#15 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:35 AM

Quote

But why interject the, oh "This is just another occasion for Republican Bashing".
Because that's all Omega's post is.

The default response of the religious left to literally ANY data.

I guess you'd much prefer I not notice the phenomena, even when it hits an awe inspiring of disconnect like this. But in your rush to try your hand at shaming me just for mentioning it, you ended up missing the real tragedy. See the real "victims" here are the people who are no longer capable of simply digesting facts, without their political dogma distorting all common sense.

BTW take a look at conservative media some time and you'll see Republicans ripped a new a-hole on a daily basis. They do usually wait for issues where Republicans are at least tangentially involved however.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#16 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:36 AM

Quote

Whoever ordered the military to stand down and not go to Benghazi, it wasn't Clinton. She has no power to order the military to do anything. No military commander would take such an order from her, or he'd be Court Marshaled. If there was an order to stand down, then it came from Defense or the CIA, or the WH. So, all the fervor about it ALL being Clinton's fault is outright politicization and an attempt to set the stage for her possible run at the WH. She did not order anyone to stand down.

Think about that for a minute. We do not know what happened and there was no testimony about where the order to stand came from. [Yes I watched the entire hearing], and Clinton could not have done it.

I have thought about and for more than a minute -
Where was President Obama in all of this? The one man who can authorize and order troops to move above everybody and instantly is commander in chief. Where was he for these hours when the fight was raging? Has anybody asked it? Has anybody answered that?

link

Quote

Loesch asked Wagner, “Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?”

"The President of the United States,” the Missouri congresswoman affirmed."


#17 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:17 PM

View Postscherzo, on 13 May 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Quote

But why interject the, oh "This is just another occasion for Republican Bashing".
Because that's all Omega's post is.

Is there a particular reason you say things that can be verified as false by anyone scrolling up half a dozen posts?

#18 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

View Postscherzo, on 13 May 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Quote

But why interject the, oh "This is just another occasion for Republican Bashing".
Because that's all Omega's post is.

The default response of the religious left to literally ANY data.

I guess you'd much prefer I not notice the phenomena, even when it hits an awe inspiring of disconnect like this. But in your rush to try your hand at shaming me just for mentioning it, you ended up missing the real tragedy. See the real "victims" here are the people who are no longer capable of simply digesting facts, without their political dogma distorting all common sense.

Ya know, you and I have been at odds since, well forever.  It's so old between us.  You and I are like the political parties in this country.  We see everything through the personal bias we have and react accordingly.  I'd like to actually talk to one another instead of at one another, but whatever.  I suppose we can just go on this way.  It's kinda boring now though don't you think?

Reading the exchange between you and Omega it came across as you playing the poor republican victim of the ignorant Left.  That's the way it comes across.  I wondered why that is your default response.  Thank you for answering.  You respond that way because you perceive the Left to be acting in exactly the way I've just described you and your fellow Republicans   I suppose we can conclude that this is the political divide fast at work.  

I just wondered if anyone wanted to actually move past the fiery finger pointing and begin talking like citizens instead of partisans.  But, I do thank you for answering my questions.

Quote

BTW take a look at conservative media some time and you'll see Republicans ripped a new a-hole on a daily basis. They do usually wait for issues where Republicans are at least tangentially involved however.

As far as watching Conservative media... I do watch Conservative media--every day if there is something popping in the regular media, and at least once a week if the week is slow news-wise.  The reason I watch Conservative media is because I don't trust media in general.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, when I hear a Liberal media outlet say "Republicans are saying XYZ", I actually go and see what is being said in Conservative media.  I do the same when I hear [and I do hear it all the time because I watch Conservative media] "Democrats are saying XYZ".  

I am the person who actually investigates what is being reported by partisan outlets about the other side, because I'm aware of just how distorted it is on both sides.   You'd be surprised at just how much bias there is in BOTH sides of reporting.  There are no good guys in partisan media outlets.  It is all partisan, and not very informative in the long run.  It's like looking at data through a lens that is like a Fun House with all the distorted mirrors.  

View PostKota, on 13 May 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:



I have thought about and for more than a minute -
Where was President Obama in all of this? The one man who can authorize and order troops to move above everybody and instantly is commander in chief. Where was he for these hours when the fight was raging? Has anybody asked it? Has anybody answered that?


Now this is a question worth asking and getting answered.


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#19 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:45 PM

View PostOmega, on 13 May 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 13 May 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Quote

But why interject the, oh "This is just another occasion for Republican Bashing".
Because that's all Omega's post is.

Is there a particular reason you say things that can be verified as false by anyone scrolling up half a dozen posts?

Really?

You wrote this:

Quote

But I'd also say Congres is wasting a huge amount of time when they have actual work to do. Since the GOP House has a history of abusing their power to embarrass Democrat presidents for politilcal ends, I really can't trust them. When they describe a former Ambassador as refusing to testify at their hearings, and then that ambassador comes out saying he wanted to and was told they didn't want him, their credibility is pretty well shot.

Oh please as if the Democrats hands are clean of ever trying to drag down Bush, nope not ever - not a single time!  You're want to say this is the Republican's fault, but hardly they aren't in charge.

The former Ambassador - Here the conversation from yesterday

Quote

REP. ISSA: You know, let’s not blow things out of proportion. This is a failure, it needs to be investigated. Our committee can investigate. Now, Ambassador Pickering, his people and he refused to come before our committee that…
AMB. THOMAS PICKERING (Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs/Chair, Accountability Review Board on Benghazi): That is not true.
GREGORY: All right. We’re-- we’re going to get to Ambassador Pickering.
REP. ISSA: We have-- we have it in-- we have it in writing, we have White House correspondence. It may not have been the Ambassador’s decision but it was the White House decision. That has been reversed. We’re inviting him on Monday along with Admiral Mullen to come, to go through, with his papers, a private deposition so we can get the facts in a nonpartisan way.
GREGORY: Right.
REP. ISSA: We’ll have Republicans and Democratic…
GREGORY: Well, all right. Ambassador Pickering, you-- you just jumped in here. You’re willing to appear?
AMB. PICKERING: Of course. I’ve said the day before the hearings, I was willing to appear to come to the very hearings that he disclu-- he excluded me from. The White House told me back that he said…
REP. ISSA: One second. Please-- please don’t tell me I excluded you.
AMB. PICKERING: Well, the-- the majority was-- we were told the majority said I was not welcomed at that hearing. I could come at some other time.
REP. ISSA: Well, as-- as the ambassador just said, the day before the hearing, if the White House said we’d like to have him, there’s a procedure. He could have been the Democratic witness. And we would have allowed him. The Democrats requested no witness. The fact is, we don’t want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and-- and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the ARB. We’re inviting them on Monday. We’ll go through, not in front of the public but-- but in a nonpartisan way questions and answers and then obviously…
GREGORY: All right.
http://www.nbcnews.c...ZBptUo7YrU]link

Congress wasting time on finding out who is responsible for for the loss of 4 American lives being lost, is a sad sad statement. But you are right they now need to cover up the IRS screw up, times a wasting, but first President Obama has a few fund raisers  to attend.

#20 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:57 PM

Quote

the heat of battle with real-time communications regarding what was going on, didn’t our top leaders send responsive help that was so urgently needed? Past presidents have taken rapid actions to protect our people. For example, in 1984, President Reagan ordered U.S. pilots to force an airliner carrying terrorists to land at Sigonella within a 90 minute window while they were still airborne. The Obama national security team had several hours to move forces from that same air base to Benghazi. We deserve an explanation.

Excellent article worth a read
link


President Reagan was a leader and where was President Obama?



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bengazi, 2013, white house

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users