New Disclosures on Benghazi

[maxpower1227]

So since we're now at 1000 posts, can we get a cliff notes on what we've learned so far? My impression goes something like this:

- Hicks wanted a fly-over that he says would have scared off the attackers, but was informed that the nearest fighters were out of range in the north of Italy

- Hicks alleges that special forces members were ordered not to board a C-130 from Tripoli to Benghazi. However, those forces were only 4 people and the aircraft did not take off until at least an hour after the last attack begun. If I understand correctly it was sent to pick up evacuees from the airport, not to provide support.

- Hicks was watching tv the night of the attack and missed two calls from Stevens telling him the embassy was under attack. I do not that anything has been made of this by the Congressional hearing.

- This whole thing is a ridiculous partisan witch hunt designed to 1) fulfill Issa's promise to investigate the administration for literally everything, 2) find some reason, ANY reason, to impeach Obama, which Republicans have been fantasizing about since literally 7 weeks into his first term, and 3) find a reason to pre-emptively disqualify Hilary Clinton from running for president in 2016.

Did I miss anything important?!

 

[A'isha]

Did I miss anything important?!

The CIA is the one that included the mention of the attack arising spontaneously out of demonstrations against an anti-Islam video in the talking points memo, not the State Department or White House.

 

[maxpower1227]

The CIA is the one that included the mention of the attack arising spontaneously out of demonstrations against an anti-Islam video in the talking points memo, not the State Department or White House.

Oh yes.

During a visit with my (hardcore right-wing) parents this weekend, the inevitable Benghazi discussion came up. I was informed that the talking points had NOTHING to do with the CIA, but were made up directly by the White House and State Department. I was also informed that Navy SEALs were ordered not to go, and that two Navy SEALs who did come to the consulate's aid would have been court-martialed had they survived. Oh, and that the reason this attack is so scandalous while none of the other embassy attacks prior to Obama were was that only this attack lasted for 7-8 hours, which means reinforcements should have been sent.

I really, really hate right-wingnut land

 

[marplots]

How do you define it working? I think it can only be attractive (or even palatable) to the base that already votes conservative.

That would suffice as "working." Remember, the tactic isn't being evaluated by me so much as by Issa.

ETA: Also, if Hillary in 2016 is the target, it's waaay too early. There are a lot of 15 minute news cycles between now and campaign season.

While that may be a benefit, wouldn't another driver be continuing support and donations to aggressive Repubs who come off as "law and order" and "showing the Dems up for who they really are?"

I submit as my proof Issa's name and face in the news. That might very well be enough "working" to keep at it.

 

[marplots]

Oh yes.

During a visit with my (hardcore right-wing) parents this weekend, the inevitable Benghazi discussion came up. I was informed that the talking points had NOTHING to do with the CIA, but were made up directly by the White House and State Department. I was also informed that Navy SEALs were ordered not to go, and that two Navy SEALs who did come to the consulate's aid would have been court-martialed had they survived. Oh, and that the reason this attack is so scandalous while none of the other embassy attacks prior to Obama were was that only this attack lasted for 7-8 hours, which means reinforcements should have been sent.

I really, really hate right-wingnut land

Oh, you missed the main point then. Superman was told to stand down as well.

 

[RandFan]

There is always hope:

I would say to the GOP, take heart. Issa has said that the investigation continues and there will be more hearings. He's promised to get to the bottom of this. I'm not sure what's at the bottom but if it's there Issa is going to find it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That would suffice as "working." Remember, the tactic isn't being evaluated by me so much as by Issa.



While that may be a benefit, wouldn't another driver be continuing support and donations to aggressive Repubs who come off as "law and order" and "showing the Dems up for who they really are?"

I submit as my proof Issa's name and face in the news. That might very well be enough "working" to keep at it.

But I think Etch-a-Sketch Romney showed them the danger of kowtowing to the base too much. At some point you'll need to reach less partisan voters. Meanwhile, you're giving your opponents lots of footage of you saying foolish things.

 

[A'isha]

I would say to the GOP, take heart. Issa has said that the investigation continues and there will be more hearings. He's promised to get to the bottom of this. I'm not sure what's at the bottom but if it's there Issa is going to find it.

And he'll keep digging that hole until he does!

 

[maxpower1227]

I just hope they make the comedy movie adaptation of this ridiculous farce soon so Christopher Waltz can play Chairman Issa.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would say to the GOP, take heart. Issa has said that the investigation continues and there will be more hearings. He's promised to get to the bottom of this. I'm not sure what's at the bottom but if it's there Issa is going to find it.

Yes, I'm certain Issa will find the bottom!

 

[marplots]

But I think Etch-a-Sketch Romney showed them the danger of kowtowing to the base too much. At some point you'll need to reach less partisan voters. Meanwhile, you're giving your opponents lots of footage of you saying foolish things.

I don't know if Issa is running for President, but Joe McCarthy got re-elected and died in office. The Congressional Bully schtick has a storied history. It can work pretty well.

On the other hand, judging by the Daily Show and SNL, it's also pretty easy to mock, so there's hope.

 

[RandFan]

But I think Etch-a-Sketch Romney showed them the danger of kowtowing to the base too much. At some point you'll need to reach less partisan voters. Meanwhile, you're giving your opponents lots of footage of you saying foolish things.

Which is why I think some in the GOP are getting a bit upset at the entire affair. It's not going anywhere and has great potential to make people like Issa look like idiots clinging desperately to something that has no "there", there. At some point you go from responsibly providing oversight to defending an obvious fishing expedition. At some point the appeals to emotion lose their sting and people are asking "where's the beef?" Yeah, the prime minister was embarrassed and upset. That's a diplomacy problem not a crime. Yes, Hicks and others were upset by what they believed was malfeasance and/or indifference. But their emotions don't evidence make. You need something more than people being outraged. You need to demonstrate what people knew and when they knew it.

 

[C_Felix]

New question:

I've read a few timelines as to what happened.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._benghazi_timeline_in_spreadsheet_format.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...om-night-benghazi-attack-begs-more-questions/


So...any ideas as to which one is the most accurate?


The last one (Fox) is interesting. It claims there's a gap between when it happened and when people knew about it.

That means for nearly an hour, no one told the defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman that a U.S. ambassador is in peril and his personal security officer has pressed his “personal distress button” which sends an SMS signal back to the command authority in the U.S. and a U.S. embassy has been overrun by attackers.

 

[A'isha]

New question:

I've read a few timelines as to what happened.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._benghazi_timeline_in_spreadsheet_format.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...om-night-benghazi-attack-begs-more-questions/


So...any ideas as to which one is the most accurate?

Of the three, the Pentagon timeline posted by CNN is the most accurate. There are significant errors in the American Thinker one (which isn't surprising, given the fact that the website is generally full of crazy right-wing conspiracy mongering). As for the Fox timeline,

The last one (Fox) is interesting. It claims there's a gap between when it happened and when people knew about it.

It also relies pretty much exclusively on "anonymous sources" for its supposed contradictions. And Fox's "anonymous sources" about Benghazi have a remarkably poor track record for accuracy.

 

[C_Felix]

Of the three, the Pentagon timeline posted by CNN is the most accurate. There are significant errors in the American Thinker one (which isn't surprising, given the fact that the website is generally full of crazy right-wing conspiracy mongering). As for the Fox timeline,



It also relies pretty much exclusively on "anonymous sources" for its supposed contradictions. And Fox's "anonymous sources" about Benghazi have a remarkably poor track record for accuracy.

So, it seems there are some-odd 30 minutes where Panetta & Crew know what is going on and Obama doesn't know?

 

[spin0]

So, it seems there are some-odd 30 minutes where Panetta & Crew know what is going on and Obama doesn't know?

11 pm is when the meeting took place, doesn't mean it was the time when Obama was first informed.

 

[A'isha]

And the meeting was a pre-scheduled one, it wasn't originally for discussing the Benghazi attack.

 

[A'isha]

Just when I thought this non-scandal couldn't possibly get any stupider:

“The president sent a letter to the President of Libya where he didn’t call it a terrorist attack even when at the time the President of Libya was calling it pre-planned Sept. 11 terrorist attack,” Issa told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “The words that are being used carefully — like you just said, ‘act of terror’ — an ‘act of terror’ is different than a ‘terrorist attack.’ The truth is, this was a terrorist attack, this had Al Qaeda at it.”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2...azi-terrorism-by-calling-it-an-act-of-terror/

 

[fess]

I really, really hate right-wingnut land

I’m quite sure there are a few of those living in the “right-wingnut land” that feel the same way about the left. But, that doesn’t solve the who and how someone dropped the ball mystery that caused the loss of life of innocent Americans.

 

[A'isha]

I’m quite sure there are a few of those living in the “right-wingnut land” that feel the same way about the left. But, that doesn’t solve the who and how someone dropped the ball mystery that caused the loss of life of innocent Americans.

Neither does this nonsense about the talking points memo.

In fact, Issa and the Republicans care so little about the answer to that question that they didn't even want to hear from the person who actually did investigate that question.