Hillary Benghazi Hearing

[Julio3000]

It isn't a garden-variety ****-up because garden-variety ****-ups generally don't result in executed diplomats.

It reeks, as I analogized before, because that slimy, festering, vile trail of stank leads directly to failed decision making in Washington (the decision to go from Tripoli back to Benghazi, the decision to provide inadequate and unlicensed security personnel, the decision to go public with incorrect details regarding the attacks [for political protection during a re-election campaign]) - not on the ground in Libya.

At best, Clinton is guilty of having failed to do her job. At worst, there have been allegations of a cover-up or worse. That's the entire point of an investigation. Not to be confused with a trial, mind you.

This is kinda sweet coming from an Iraq War bitter ender. I guess that was just a garden-variety ****up.

How much more investigation to we need to determine if there was a cover-up? The previous seven congressional inquests have not, nor has this one, to date. Did ANYTHING pertaining to that end come out of her 11 hours of testimony?

Poking her about her Libya policy, Sidney Blumenthal, the Clinton Foundation, or her email server may very well be damaging to candidate Hillary. It will not, however, prove a cover-up or any wrongdoing by HRC on the actual substance of the investigation.

allegations of a cover-up or worse

How are those allegations shaping up? What are they, specifically, and what evidence supports them?

[Hawk]

This is kinda sweet coming from an Iraq War bitter ender. I guess that was just a garden-variety ****up.

How much more investigation to we need to determine if there was a cover-up? The previous seven congressional inquests have not, nor has this one, to date. Did ANYTHING pertaining to that end come out of her 11 hours of testimony?

Poking her about her Libya policy, Sidney Blumenthal, the Clinton Foundation, or her email server may very well be damaging to candidate Hillary. It will not, however, prove a cover-up or any wrongdoing by HRC on the actual substance of the investigation.

allegations of a cover-up or worse

How are those allegations shaping up? What are they, specifically, and what evidence supports them?

Well, this all certainly might have been resolved much sooner had the Clinton camp a) not kept high-level government correspondence on a private e-mail server b) provided all of those e-mails when requested by one of the earlier committees c) been able to say, even now, that all discovery requests had been freely, accurately, and totally produced.

Why stop snooping when there's a lemon out there still worth squeezing? All of the e-mails haven't been recovered.

Clinton's candidacy has hurt the investigation from the beginning. Understandably she's going to want to protect her brand, her legacy, her decisions. But it's also impeded the free and honest exchange of evidence (whether that be factual or material in nature [read: Blumenthal]).

And again, those allegations aren't coming from the committee. They are simply tasked with reviewing with the facts and presenting their findings to Congress.

Do you honestly feel like all the facts have been presented in a manner which the American people should accept? It doesn't bother you that candidate Clinton has gone to great lengths to paint her involvement in Benghazi as purely functionary?

[Julio3000]

Well, this all certainly might have been resolved much sooner had the Clinton camp a) not kept high-level government correspondence on a private e-mail server b) provided all of those e-mails when requested by one of the earlier committees c) been able to say, even now, that all discovery requests had been freely, accurately, and totally produced.

Why stop snooping when there's a lemon out there still worth squeezing? All of the e-mails haven't been recovered.

Clinton's candidacy has hurt the investigation from the beginning. Understandably she's going to want to protect her brand, her legacy, her decisions. But it's also impeded the free and honest exchange of evidence (whether that be factual or material in nature [read: Blumenthal]).

And again, those allegations aren't coming from the committee. They are simply tasked with reviewing with the facts and presenting their findings to Congress.

Do you honestly feel like all the facts have been presented in a manner which the American people should accept?

If I understood better what the specific allegations were, I would feel better about saying that we should proceed with an investigation to the end of the earth, 'til every stone is turned and every email is read. What "facts" are you talking about? I'm not clear on what pertinent questions are still extant at this point.

Rather than your lemon analogy, I'd suggest that you're saying "if you're on a fishing expedition, better cast 'til you run out of bait." Until something comes to light that proves otherwise, this deal looks like a solution in search of a problem.

[Runnin]

On May 8, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 567, Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya. (Roll Call Vote 209)

The Select Committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study and issue a final report of its findings to the House regarding--

All policies, decisions, and activities that contributed to the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, as well as those that affected the ability of the United States to prepare for the attacks;
All policies, decisions, and activities to respond to and repel the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, including efforts to rescue United States personnel;.......

Okay. So this is the GOP's political maneuver to make a garden variety terrorist attack on an embassy somehow the Secretary of State's fault. I still haven't heard anything specifically she's guilty of, nor has anyone else.

[Runnin]

There are emails now proving that she knew Benghazi was a well organized terrorist attack from the beginning, but for some weird reason she told a flat out lie about it being about a video. If you want to vote for someone who does something like that then that is your right. She wanted it covered up. So damn shady.

She's under no obligation to speak honestly to the press about what she and U.S. knew about the perpetrators of the attack, especially directly after the attack. If fact, her obligation is to follow orders from the White House, which is always some form of information misdirection.

The Sec. of State not admitting it was "a well organized" attack is not different from a police detective refusing to tell the press everything they know about a crime.

[BedellBrave]

I'm trying to remember all of this story. I think she and the administration are at best guilty of stupidity (calculated bending of the rules - having the private server - but something they'll call being unwise not illegal; and getting enmeshed in Libya), naivety (hawkish, virtual Neo-con support of the Arab Spring in Libya), and negligence (why were we in Benghazi with so little security in the first place?) - at least open to those critiques. Madame Secretary is also open to the critique of being a liar (I suppose all politicians are) and a money-grubber (I suppose most politicians are). But a politician at her level - from either party - probably will never take a real hit for such.

[Hawk]

If I understood better what the specific allegations were, I would feel better about saying that we should proceed with an investigation to the end of the earth, 'til every stone is turned and every email is read. What "facts" are you talking about? I'm not clear on what pertinent questions are still extant at this point.

I've made mention of them in my previous posts. Some fall under the direct purview of the stated objectives of the Select Committee. For example, the bit about 'accountability for policies and decisons in Libya and Benghazi'. Does attempting to ascertain what exactly those policies were (and further, who exactly was formulating them) constitute an unnecessarily aggressive investigation? So you might see where it follows that when Clinton does not cooperate with multiple authorities (Issa, Gowdy, the FBI) charged with obtaining the requisite information/data to comprehend the decision making process whispers of a cover-up are floated.

I think the clarity you are lacking here derives primarily from the 'fact' that there is no clear, concise, or otherwise universally accepted explanation as to why Stevens was in Benghazi when he was, with woefully inadequate security, a woefully inadequate contingency plan in the event of an attack (which I think is the most damning indictment to arise out of all of this . . . in a post 9/11 world, with pages and pages of reports from Stevens himself corroborating the imminent violence at hand), and, ultimately, why the State Department and the Obama administration failed with such tragic majesty to provide legitimate exactitudes about what happened to the American people. Hell, the Egyptians knew the truth before we did - and how convenient, on the heels of a crucial debate for the President.

Rather than your lemon analogy, I'd suggest that you're saying "if you're on a fishing expedition, better cast 'til you run out of bait." Until something comes to light that proves otherwise, this deal looks like a solution in search of a problem.

I'll happily consider rephrasing when the committee announces they are satisfied with the Secretary's discovery productions.

[Hawk]

Okay. So this is the GOP's political maneuver to make a garden variety terrorist attack on an embassy somehow the Secretary of State's fault. I still haven't heard anything specifically she's guilty of, nor has anyone else.

It's one thing to be critical of the GOP for their tactics, it's another to question why an investigation was necessary in the first place.

[Hawk]

She's under no obligation to speak honestly to the press about what she and U.S. knew about the perpetrators of the attack, especially directly after the attack. If fact, her obligation is to follow orders from the White House, which is always some form of information misdirection.

There certainly is an obligation to tell the truth. We accept a certain level of 'truth blandification' for operational security, above all else, but we should - under no circumstance - readily accept out and out mistruths.

It's amazing that the same people who still grouse about the Iraq War and Iran Contra (which, like that Benghazi attack, were investigated by their own Select Committees and [justly or not] vindicated) are more than willing to turn a hypocritical blind-eye in this instance of supposed misconduct.

[Runnin]

It's one thing to be critical of the GOP for their tactics, it's another to question why an investigation was necessary in the first place.

There certainly should have been an investigation and I'm sure there was, but a serious one by competent, intelligent parties who have some expertise.

[Oklahomahawk]

Well let's be honest here, from a historical standpoint "investigation" has been as much as part of the Repub platform as "tax cuts". Ask FDR if you don't believe me. With that said I think there should be a real investigation every time something like this happens, not a great big media circus dog and pony show like this one has been. Maybe if we ever really get this process right those in charge might pay a little more attention to doing their job right.

[Hawk]

There certainly should have been an investigation and I'm sure there was, but a serious one by competent, intelligent parties who have some expertise.

There was. It's called an ARB (Accountability Review Board) and I believe it's the highest level of internal review available in the State Department. Clinton supports their findings (she appointed a majority of the members of the committee).

Here are just a few interesting snippets: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Communication, cooperation, and coordination between Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi occurred collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at senior bureau levels.

The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection.

Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.

---

But yeah, garden variety ****-up . . .

[AerchAngel]

Well let's be honest here, from a historical standpoint "investigation" has been as much as part of the Repub platform as "tax cuts". Ask FDR if you don't believe me. With that said I think there should be a real investigation every time something like this happens, not a great big media circus dog and pony show like this one has been. Maybe if we ever really get this process right those in charge might pay a little more attention to doing their job right.

Like the Attorney General Office?

They are a laughing stock of one-sideness.

This is the problem of our country, we don't have anything that represent neutrality. Whomever is in charge dictates the outcome. Either you are Left or Right, the Middle does not exist. This will kill our country.

[Oklahomahawk]

Like the Attorney General Office?

They are a laughing stock of one-sideness.

This is the problem of our country, we don't have anything that represent neutrality. Whomever is in charge dictates the outcome. Either you are Left or Right, the Middle does not exist. This will kill our country.

Exactly!! And you can go back to the 2000 election recount in FL if you need more evidence of that. Dems wouldn't allow the recount to proceed unless Dems were in there to supervise it, and Repubs wouldn't allow it to proceed unless Repubs were in there to supervise it. How can any nation survive with this level of division? Doesn't this mirror what Lincoln said in his "house divided" speech?

[AerchAngel]

Exactly!! And you can go back to the 2000 election recount in FL if you need more evidence of that. Dems wouldn't allow the recount to proceed unless Dems were in there to supervise it, and Repubs wouldn't allow it to proceed unless Repubs were in there to supervise it. How can any nation survive with this level of division? Doesn't this mirror what Lincoln said in his "house divided" speech?

Yep

And consider how long ago he said that.

We have steak sauce and krg staunch in their views for their party and will never, ever think of the middle, while you and I look at it like, both of the parties are F*CKED up but yet, Runnin, who I like a lot, saying I don't take a stand on either side. Well, look how f*cked up the parties are? Why can't I say f*ck you to both because you are both are ignorant in your ideology.

My dad and I are speaking now but still think I pissed him off calling him out. He proclaim to a DEVOUT Chrisitan and yet I told him Democrats love killing babies and love same sex marriage and want to make it mandatory in church as well or take them off the exemption list (not at this time but in the works). He said that is not possible. I said with Democrats if it is regard to Christians they would do anything to kill the church.

He refuse to believe the Democrats hate abortion and same sex marriage, but yeah he does not ever go on the internet and only watch MSNBC news. He honesty believe that Democrats are Christian base party that is against abortion and same sex marriage.

I am thunderstruck. But he is nearing 70 so I understand and apologize because he doesn't really know what the world is today because he would run to the Republican party in a heartbeat. I believe a lot of church going blacks will vote for Carson, not because he is black only, but because he would actually try to stop the black on black violence, get us education you need. He is about the future of our children. Obama is only about him and his legacy and Iran is going to screw that up royally. Hee Hee.

If the Republicans whites on this board back Carson I applaud you but I will warn you, he is not big business type of person, he has morals unlike the other Republicans not name Trump (Ego only) nor he is like the creepy Dems who are about control you and.........MONEY.

Carson does not care about money, never have, never will. This is what scares the Republican based companies that rely on greed.

[Krgrecw]

Yep

And consider how long ago he said that.

We have steak sauce and krg staunch in their views for their party and will never, ever think of the middle, while you and I look at it like, both of the parties are F*CKED up but yet, Runnin, who I like a lot, saying I don't take a stand on either side. Well, look how f*cked up the parties are? Why can't I say f*ck you to both because you are both are ignorant in your ideology.

My dad and I are speaking now but still think I pissed him off calling him out. He proclaim to a DEVOUT Chrisitan and yet I told him Democrats love killing babies and love same sex marriage and want to make it mandatory in church as well or take them off the exemption list (not at this time but in the works). He said that is not possible. I said with Democrats if it is regard to Christians they would do anything to kill the church.

He refuse to believe the Democrats hate abortion and same sex marriage, but yeah he does not ever go on the internet and only watch MSNBC news. He honesty believe that Democrats are Christian base party that is against abortion and same sex marriage.

I am thunderstruck. But he is nearing 70 so I understand and apologize because he doesn't really know what the world is today because he would run to the Republican party in a heartbeat. I believe a lot of church going blacks will vote for Carson, not because he is black only, but because he would actually try to stop the black on black violence, get us education you need. He is about the future of our children. Obama is only about him and his legacy and Iran is going to screw that up royally. Hee Hee.

If the Republicans whites on this board back Carson I applaud you but I will warn you, he is not big business type of person, he has morals unlike the other Republicans not name Trump (Ego only) nor he is like the creepy Dems who are about control you and.........MONEY.

Carson does not care about money, never have, never will. This is what scares the Republican based companies that rely on greed.

No matter ones morals or values things change once they get into a position of power. You may think Carson will stand up against Big Business, but he won't once realizes he needs big business in his pocket just as much as they need him.

Same for Bernie. Bernie can't stop or change things so anyone who votes for him thinking that he can are stupid.



We'd all be on the take if we were in that position. It's human nature.

[AerchAngel]

No matter ones morals or values things change once they get into a position of power. You may think Carson will stand up against Big Business, but he won't once realizes he needs big business in his pocket just as much as they need him.

Same for Bernie. Bernie can't stop or change things so anyone who votes for him thinking that he can are stupid.



We'd all be on the take if we were in that position. It's human nature.

Good post.

Thank you for not trashing me unlike others. You know were I stand on morality and big business.

And of course you are right if the Doc makes it, he will need big business to keep him there.

But sadly he is not.

The Head Bitch in Charge will be president because we have a lot of immoral corrupt ignorant stupid ass and ignorant Dummicrats who craves lying, deceitfulness, deflections, kill you if you are in the way president.

I am not saying I advocate for Repubs but Trump and Carson is what should be done, but Democrats are the most stupid people on this planet to go along with what I said above.

At least the Pubs will tell you like it is...Cheney notwithstanding.

[Julio3000]

There was. It's called an ARB (Accountability Review Board) and I believe it's the highest level of internal review available in the State Department. Clinton supports their findings (she appointed a majority of the members of the committee).

Here are just a few interesting snippets: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Communication, cooperation, and coordination between Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi occurred collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at senior bureau levels.

The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection.

Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.

---

But yeah, garden variety ****-up . . .

So . . . doesn't this read like some questions re: "accountability for policies and decisons in Libya and Benghazi" have been answered?

I've made mention of them in my previous posts. Some fall under the direct purview of the stated objectives of the Select Committee. For example, the bit about 'accountability for policies and decisons in Libya and Benghazi'.

That is not an allegation. That is a committee brief. I'm asking what malfeasance is being alleged, particularly on the part of HRC. Surely you aren't going to fall back on "this is just an investigation," not while this has been bandied about as a massive, worse-than-watergate scandal.

Argh, Hawk, this is where we're crossing wires. I'm asking for specificity and you're giving me broad strokes. You're asking for the executive branch to give up its inner workings to the legislative, and that's always going to be a hard sell, even without presidential politics on top of it. It's a fool's errand, and the fools' exit strategy is going to be to say that "they didn't give up all the documents," to justify all the silliness and keep hope alive that there's a white whale still swimming out there somewhere.

Again, no executive branch is going to give up the inner workings of their policy decisions without extreme compulsion. Not a Republican, not a Democrat. It sucks for the legislative branch and sometimes for the populace, but there is a pretty high wall around top-level executive decision-making.

You brought up Iran-Contra. Those hearings were structured around a specific allegation of wrongdoing. That's what I'm trying to understand. No one will cite or even paraphrase one for me.

I agree that there should be investigation and a presentation of facts, something like the 9/11 commission. The House R's have made this a Hillary-hunt from day one. I agree that if there are pertinent documents, she ought to give them up. I've always thought that it's more likely that anything she's withheld has been withheld because it is potentially embarrassing to Hillary-the-Candidate, and the House R's have given no reason for us to believe otherwise.

As for "whispers of a cover-up," you'll need to be more specific than that if you want me to accept it. A cover-up of what? Criminal activity? Or that the administration got wrong-footed? That some folks' job performance is lackluster? Christ, man. This is hardly selling arms to our sworn enemy and using the proceeds to fund a guerilla war in contravention of Congress.

Your statement about the obligation to truth? Do you think we have the full truth about how intelligence was stovepiped and manipulated in the runup to the Iraq War? Do you think the Abu Ghraib whitewash represented an objective truth? You care to cry some crocodile tears for those causes?

[AerchAngel]

So . . . doesn't this read like some questions re: "accountability for policies and decisons in Libya and Benghazi" have been answered?

I've made mention of them in my previous posts. Some fall under the direct purview of the stated objectives of the Select Committee. For example, the bit about 'accountability for policies and decisons in Libya and Benghazi'.

That is not an allegation. That is a committee brief. I'm asking what malfeasance is being alleged, particularly on the part of HRC. Surely you aren't going to fall back on "this is just an investigation," not while this has been bandied about as a massive, worse-than-watergate scandal.

Argh, Hawk, this is where we're crossing wires. I'm asking for specificity and you're giving me broad strokes. You're asking for the executive branch to give up its inner workings to the legislative, and that's always going to be a hard sell, even without presidential politics on top of it. It's a fool's errand, and the fools' exit strategy is going to be to say that "they didn't give up all the documents," to justify all the silliness and keep hope alive that there's a white whale still swimming out there somewhere.

Again, no executive branch is going to give up the inner workings of their policy decisions without extreme compulsion. Not a Republican, not a Democrat. It sucks for the legislative branch and sometimes for the populace, but there is a pretty high wall around top-level executive decision-making.

You brought up Iran-Contra. Those hearings were structured around a specific allegation of wrongdoing. That's what I'm trying to understand. No one will cite or even paraphrase one for me.

I agree that there should be investigation and a presentation of facts, something like the 9/11 commission. The House R's have made this a Hillary-hunt from day one. I agree that if there are pertinent documents, she ought to give them up. I've always thought that it's more likely that anything she's withheld has been withheld because it is potentially embarrassing to Hillary-the-Candidate, and the House R's have given no reason for us to believe otherwise.

As for "whispers of a cover-up," you'll need to be more specific than that if you want me to accept it. A cover-up of what? Criminal activity? Or that the administration got wrong-footed? That some folks' job performance is lackluster? Christ, man. This is hardly selling arms to our sworn enemy and using the proceeds to fund a guerilla war in contravention of Congress.

Your statement about the obligation to truth? Do you think we have the full truth about how intelligence was stovepiped and manipulated in the runup to the Iraq War? Do you think the Abu Ghraib whitewash represented an objective truth? You care to cry some crocodile tears for those causes?

The simple thing is......why obfuscate, or "Ray Lewis" if you have nothing to hide, just say it?

Was she incompetent? You better say yes.

But that is, I think, the only thing she is guilty of. But both sides want to be the forefront and I understand why the Reps are going after that, their sole purpose. You can't be incompetent as president.

I think they are going about it the wrong way though. I wouldn't trust her as president unless her husband makes the decisions, which is not a bad thing.

[Oklahomahawk]

No matter ones morals or values things change once they get into a position of power. You may think Carson will stand up against Big Business, but he won't once realizes he needs big business in his pocket just as much as they need him.

Same for Bernie. Bernie can't stop or change things so anyone who votes for him thinking that he can are stupid.



We'd all be on the take if we were in that position. It's human nature.

Dude, you know it scares me when we agree on stuff, right?

I agree at least in principal to what you're saying, I believe most people go to Washington with noble intentions but once they're up there they just get bogged down in the BS and the deal making. At this point I don't believe Dr. Carson is ready to be president, much like Rubio. If any of what I've heard and read is true the Rubio has already sold out to the Kochs, like most of the other Repub field. I have my doubts about Dr. Carson's "readiness" but if he's dirty or trying to get that way I haven't heard it. I also don't think Bernie would sell out like that, he might be a total flop as president but if he was all about the money he'd have a super PAC like the rest of them, even Trump has one, though sometimes he says he doesn't.

While you may be right on "all of us selling out if we were in that position" in fact you probably are quite right, but this is one I just can't accept or maybe better said I won't accept. It's hard enough to find anyone to believe in these days, and if I can't believe in those of us on this board, though we disagree often, then it might be the last straw so to speak.