New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[wareyin]

Good afternoon.
This isn't very clear. What do they mean "final report"? They didn't come to right conclusion. Can't there be yet another committee put together for another $7 million to come up with a different result?

I'm sure that a few Republicans wish to try, but I'm not sure there's enough support for them to waste yet more millions on this.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Summer, 2014: State Department officials responding to a request for documents from the House Select Committee on Benghazi realize there are no records to or from an official State Department e-mail account for Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...emails-a-timeline-of-actions-and-regulations/

And what new information did those emails provide regarding Clinton's wrongdoing in Benghazi ?

What's that ? None, you say ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Summer, 2014: State Department officials responding to a request for documents from the House Select Committee on Benghazi realize there are no records to or from an official State Department e-mail account for Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...emails-a-timeline-of-actions-and-regulations/

Bingo. Not only did those previous investigations not have access to those emails they showed that Hillary was telling foreign leaders and her daughter the truth, while lying through her teeth to the American public.

 

[Fudbucker]

And what new information did those emails provide regarding Clinton's wrongdoing in Benghazi ?

What's that ? None, you say ?

That's not my point. How did we even find out about the email scandal? Through the Benghazi hearings.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not my point. How did we even find out about the email scandal? Through the Benghazi hearings.

You mean the scandal that has so far amounted to nothing but a work survey suggesting a widespread practice in the State Department needs to be cleaned up?

 

[Tony Stark]

That's not my point. How did we even find out about the email scandal? Through the Benghazi hearings.

Yes the Republicans in their very obvious witchhunt found something they thought would be a silver bullet to finally slay the Hildebeast. Turns out they were wrong, as always. She is going to be President anyway.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes the Republicans in their very obvious witchhunt found something they thought would be a silver bullet to finally slay the Hildebeast. Turns out they were wrong, as always. She is going to be President anyway.

Does her lying bother you at all?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does her lying bother you at all?

Does Sanders' lying bother you at all? Think he has never told a politically expedient lie, or perhaps a lie he inadvertantly believed?


Think you might be applying a double standard here?

 

[Mike!]

Does her lying bother you at all?

They don't view it as lying, it's "Objectively Enhanced Truth".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They don't view it as lying, it's "Objectively Enhanced Truth".

Think you might be applying a double standard here?

Are you claiming the GOP doesn't include a bastion of political liars? Is there a single GOP politician that has told fewer lies than Clinton?

 

[A'isha]

I like how one of the Republicans' big findings that's so damning to Clinton is the fact that the military didn't respond quickly enough to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's deployment orders in the wake of the attack.

Because that's totally the Secretary of State's responsibility.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's not my point. How did we even find out about the email scandal? Through the Benghazi hearings.

But it's a good point, none the less.

And there's a whole thread -> to discuss her email.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Benghazi affair is another one of those things that I would like to know more about, but it's so difficult to wade through the partisan BS that it doesn't seem worth it. Nevertheless, I've managed to draw some conclusions. Just another voice from the internet, but here are some of my thoughts.


Never mind the strident, ridiculous, over the top commentaries by opponents of the Obama administration. Put them out of your mind. Can anyone possibly use the word "competent" to describe the administration's response?

The whole thing about the film really does kind of tick me off. When the news was first going on, I really disliked the Obama administration's rather tepid defense of free speech in America. They went out of their way to talk about how horrible that film was. The filmmaker even ended up getting arrested. (An immigration charge, I think. Or taxes? Something.) Yes, I know that they said hatred of the film was no excuse, but I would have preferred something along the lines of, "In America, we are free to express our opinions. It makes our society great. We look forward to the day when freedom of speech is universal across all nations. The appropriate response to speech you do not like is more speech, not violence.

And then, of course, as time went on, it became more and more clear that the film wasn't really related to the attack in the first place, which just made them look stupid.

To echo a point made by a previous poster, Hillary Clinton seems to be blamed for some element of the military response, or lack thereof, to the attack. Does this make any sense? Did the Secretary of State have a role in deploying assets to a consulate under attack? Isn't that what Presidents, generals, and Secretaries of Defense are for? There's probably some information in the report that would explain that, but, once again, I will plead that I don't care to wade through the partisan BS in order to find it. If someone can point me to what Hillary Clinton could have done differently to affect the military situation, I'd be willing to read it.

One of the Republican talking points today is that the Democratic alternative report mentions Donald Trump 23 times. I must admit that particular talking point makes a lot of sense to me. Why the heck would you mention Donald Trump even once in relation to this matter? Of course, a lot of times, I find that the Republican talking points are such wild distortions that reality bears no real resemblance to the talking point, but it's still odd to me.

In general, it looks to me like this was a very bad day for America, and the President and his administration deserve at least a portion of the blame for that, but of course the political grandstanding on the issue may very well obscure the legitimate failures that occurred.

 

[Tony Stark]

The Benghazi affair is another one of those things that I would like to know more about, but it's so difficult to wade through the partisan BS that it doesn't seem worth it. Nevertheless, I've managed to draw some conclusions. Just another voice from the internet, but here are some of my thoughts.


Never mind the strident, ridiculous, over the top commentaries by opponents of the Obama administration. Put them out of your mind. Can anyone possibly use the word "competent" to describe the administration's response?

The whole thing about the film really does kind of tick me off. When the news was first going on, I really disliked the Obama administration's rather tepid defense of free speech in America. They went out of their way to talk about how horrible that film was. The filmmaker even ended up getting arrested. (An immigration charge, I think. Or taxes? Something.) Yes, I know that they said hatred of the film was no excuse, but I would have preferred something along the lines of, "In America, we are free to express our opinions. It makes our society great. We look forward to the day when freedom of speech is universal across all nations. The appropriate response to speech you do not like is more speech, not violence.

And then, of course, as time went on, it became more and more clear that the film wasn't really related to the attack in the first place, which just made them look stupid.

To echo a point made by a previous poster, Hillary Clinton seems to be blamed for some element of the military response, or lack thereof, to the attack. Does this make any sense? Did the Secretary of State have a role in deploying assets to a consulate under attack? Isn't that what Presidents, generals, and Secretaries of Defense are for? There's probably some information in the report that would explain that, but, once again, I will plead that I don't care to wade through the partisan BS in order to find it. If someone can point me to what Hillary Clinton could have done differently to affect the military situation, I'd be willing to read it.

One of the Republican talking points today is that the Democratic alternative report mentions Donald Trump 23 times. I must admit that particular talking point makes a lot of sense to me. Why the heck would you mention Donald Trump even once in relation to this matter? Of course, a lot of times, I find that the Republican talking points are such wild distortions that reality bears no real resemblance to the talking point, but it's still odd to me.

In general, it looks to me like this was a very bad day for America, and the President and his administration deserve at least a portion of the blame for that, but of course the political grandstanding on the issue may very well obscure the legitimate failures that occurred.

There were lots more embassy attacks under Dubya's watch. And a big one under God-President Reagan. Do Republicans give the slightest **** about those? No, because they are extremely dishonest scum and only pretend to care about Benghazi because they believe they can use it to their political advantage. It is quite pathetic, really.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The whole thing about the film really does kind of tick me off. When the news was first going on, I really disliked the Obama administration's rather tepid defense of free speech in America. They went out of their way to talk about how horrible that film was. The filmmaker even ended up getting arrested. (An immigration charge, I think. Or taxes? Something.) Yes, I know that they said hatred of the film was no excuse, but I would have preferred something along the lines of, "In America, we are free to express our opinions. It makes our society great. We look forward to the day when freedom of speech is universal across all nations. The appropriate response to speech you do not like is more speech, not violence.

And then, of course, as time went on, it became more and more clear that the film wasn't really related to the attack in the first place, which just made them look stupid.

The thinking film related rioting was related to the Benghazi attack would have been a minor blip in the scheme of things had not the GOP (led at that time by Darrell Issa) contrived an entirely fictitious narrative that the White House was trying to cover up the fact this was (or might have been) a terrorist attack. Obama proved that wasn't true with his very first mention of the attack as a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden the next day.

That did not stop the Republicans from persisting in that false narrative of some coverup to this day!

Have you thought about the fact the supposed cover up involving the video and other attacks the same day never happened?

...One of the Republican talking points today is that the Democratic alternative report mentions Donald Trump 23 times. I must admit that particular talking point makes a lot of sense to me. Why the heck would you mention Donald Trump even once in relation to this matter? Of course, a lot of times, I find that the Republican talking points are such wild distortions that reality bears no real resemblance to the talking point, but it's still odd to me.

This piqued my interest so after wading past the slew of right wing blogosphere's criticism of referencing Trump in the report I found the reason:

Most of the uses of the GOP presumptive nominee’s name come in the form of debunking claims he has made in interviews about the former Secretary of State’s role in the attacks.

So if all you hear is Trump's name is mentioned more times than two of the deceased's I can see why that would be puzzling. And I'm sure the Democrats on the committee could have addressed Trump's falsehoods in a different document.

But beyond that, it is reasonable that at some point the Democrats note the multiple unsupported claims Trump has made directly attacking Clinton based on the 7 million dollar nth committee investigation of Benghazi that again turned up nothing substantial they could hang on Clinton.

Trey Gowdy admitted publicly (albeit accidentally) that he was looking to find something to incriminate Clinton.

...In general, it looks to me like this was a very bad day for America, and the President and his administration deserve at least a portion of the blame for that, but of course the political grandstanding on the issue may very well obscure the legitimate failures that occurred.

Why today? There's nothing here that wasn't known several years ago.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There were lots more embassy attacks under Dubya's watch. And a big one under God-President Reagan. Do Republicans give the slightest **** about those? No, because they are extremely dishonest scum and only pretend to care about Benghazi because they believe they can use it to their political advantage. It is quite pathetic, really.

That ^ too.

 

[Meadmaker]

The thinking film related rioting was related to the Benghazi attack would have been a minor blip in the scheme of things had not the GOP (led at that time by Darrell Issa) contrived an entirely fictitious narrative that the White House was trying to cover up the fact this was (or might have been) a terrorist attack. Obama proved that wasn't true with his very first mention of the attack as a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden the next day.

One of the bizarre things I thought at the time was the supposed dichotomy between "film related" and "terrorist attack". It could be both. I thought it was weird at the time.

But it really was the Obama administration that pushed the film narrative. For a few weeks, I had the impression that it was a terrorist attack that was done in retaliation for the film. I pictured an angry mob that militants decided to take advantage of, which was exactly what Susan Rice said.

When it became clear that isn't what happened, I thought they looked stupid.

This piqued my interest so after wading past the slew of right wing blogosphere's criticism of referencing Trump in the report I found the reason:

I assumed that is how Trump's name came up 23 times, but it doesn't matter to me. I don't see any reason to mention his name at all in the report. If they want to issue a separate analysis, fine and dandy, but that's a political document. They can pool their campaign funds and pay for it.

I know, I know. The majority document was a political report. Why shouldn't the minority report be one, too?

Why today? There's nothing here that wasn't known several years ago.

When I said, "this was a bad day for America", I was referring to the day of the Benghazi attack, not today. And yes, it's true, today didn't add much, if anything to our knowledge of what happened then. But it added a little bit to my personal knowledge, just because I paid a little bit more attention today than I had before.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The thinking film related rioting was related to the Benghazi attack would have been a minor blip in the scheme of things had not the GOP (led at that time by Darrell Issa) contrived an entirely fictitious narrative that the White House was trying to cover up the fact this was (or might have been) a terrorist attack. Obama proved that wasn't true with his very first mention of the attack as a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden the next day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Politics
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
By Glenn Kessler May 14, 2013

(JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS)
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act f violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

One of the bizarre things I thought at the time was the supposed dichotomy between "film related" and "terrorist attack". It could be both. I thought it was weird at the time.

But it really was the Obama administration that pushed the film narrative. For a few weeks, I had the impression that it was a terrorist attack that was done in retaliation for the film. I pictured an angry mob that militants decided to take advantage of, which was exactly what Susan Rice said.

When it became clear that isn't what happened, I thought they looked stupid.

A) A film or video caused some spontaneous riots elsewhere the same night.
B) Obama agrees with you, spontaneous terrorism is still terrorism.
C) How do you know that within 4 days everyone was supposed to be certain of all the facts?

Factcheck Timeline:
You can look at that detailed timeline and say, oh for sure, big cover up, big lie. Or you can look at it and say, it's not uncommon for these things to take a few days to be sorted out.

In the meantime the 24 hour news cycle is flooding the State Department with reporters demanding instant information.

There was this supposedly incriminating email:

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.

Was that conclusive, really, right then and there when they emailed it to each other? Does a 'named responsible' mean the video had nothing to do with it and this was known with absolute certainty before Rice make talk show rounds?

A normal timeframe for dissemination of information is to inform the public ASAP and correct the record as more is found out. That this was some sinister coverup is ludicrous.

The facts are out there. Claiming a purposeful cover up, nonsense. If there was an email that said, "Obama and/or Clinton said to downplay the planned evidence" that's the only way there would be an actual case here.

I assumed that is how Trump's name came up 23 times, but it doesn't matter to me. I don't see any reason to mention his name at all in the report. If they want to issue a separate analysis, fine and dandy, but that's a political document. They can pool their campaign funds and pay for it.

I know, I know. The majority document was a political report. Why shouldn't the minority report be one, too?

Both were political reports. I don't believe the Democrats said anything different. Their point was to jump the gun with their own political report.

When I said, "this was a bad day for America", I was referring to the day of the Benghazi attack, not today.

Along with many many more.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Politics
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
By Glenn Kessler May 14, 2013

(JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS)
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act f violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

On a separate note, I find your italicizing quotes instead of using the quote function hard to parse.

Also, if you could sum up what your point is here, it would be helpful.

Talk about nuanced:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate.

I'd say that was pretty vague on its own face.