You're supposed to care about it for the same reason people were supposed to care about Whitewater (years and years and years of testimony about a land deal that the Clintons lost money on) Vince Foster (that lesbian Hillary was sleeping with him and had to kill him suicide style - or something) Travel Gate (those nasty Clintons cleaned out the White House travel office of Bush people and hired their own travel staff)
Get used to this folks. They will do *anything* to keep her from the White House - and when she wins they will have ongoing investigations throughout her Presidency. You heard it here first.
I honestly don't know why Hillary would want to be President after all the crap she's been through.
I think she wants to be the first woman President. I think she will be a great one. And they will investigate her starting day 1 as long as the Republicans hold either the House or Senate.
OK, if this is true....why does this matter? What would have been different if they publicly blamed terrorists instead of protesters? I don't understand.
Well, it matters be government officials were blatantly lying about whether our embassy was under attack. The national security ramifications are different if we are attacked by terrorists or operatives from another country rather than a protesting mob.
Plus there is the whole issue about whether the embassy staff was surprised by a mob attack or the victims of a terrorist attack that they pretty much saw coming and asked for help to avoid.
Just because the Rs are bent on making Hillary a scapegoat and prolonging the drama, doesn't mean the appropriate people should not be held responsible for their actions.
Yes, that's exactly right. Remember there were other protests going on at other Embassies at the same time. The US felt it was in our security interest to not make the fact that it was a terrorist attack public when everything was so volatile. What are your credentials that make you qualified to second guess national security experts?
Well, it matters be government officials were blatantly lying about whether our embassy was under attack. The national security ramifications are different if we are attacked by terrorists or operatives from another country rather than a protesting mob.
Plus there is the whole issue about whether the embassy staff was surprised by a mob attack or the victims of a terrorist attack that they pretty much saw coming and asked for help to avoid.
Just because the Rs are bent on making Hillary a scapegoat and prolonging the drama, doesn't mean the appropriate people should not be held responsible for their actions.
Yes, that's exactly right. Remember there were other protests going on at other Embassies at the same time. The US felt it was in our security interest to not make the fact that it was a terrorist attack public when everything was so volatile. What are your credentials that make you qualified to second guess national security experts?
Exactly. Seeing as how protests were going on throughout the Middle East due to the video and the embassy in Egypt was being attacked - that would have been their first conclusion. It was stated that it was - then corrected.
I honestly don't know why Hillary would want to be President after all the crap she's been through.
I think she wants to be the first woman President. I think she will be a great one. And they will investigate her starting day 1 as long as the Republicans hold either the House or Senate.
Yep, I think she would be a great President too. But the personal price would be too great if I were in her shoes. But she's probably used to it. I just hope Bill behaves himself if Hillary gets to be President. Because the rumors about him are going to start on day 1 too.
Well, it matters be government officials were blatantly lying about whether our embassy was under attack. The national security ramifications are different if we are attacked by terrorists or operatives from another country rather than a protesting mob.
Plus there is the whole issue about whether the embassy staff was surprised by a mob attack or the victims of a terrorist attack that they pretty much saw coming and asked for help to avoid.
Just because the Rs are bent on making Hillary a scapegoat and prolonging the drama, doesn't mean the appropriate people should not be held responsible for their actions.
What sort of national security ramifications? It sounds like the government knew what was really going on, so how does it matter if the public thought something different for (less than) one day?
I still want to know what specifically would have been different if the government had told the public "it's terrorism" instead of "it's protesters."
Because terrorism means they messed up security. As I imagine is the case in all those cases under Bush that BAM listed, assuming even half of those are true. And there were so many investigations into gov't lapses for those. Don't you remember?
I mean, okay, worst case scenario, the government lied to the public for 14 hours about the motivation behind the attack, out of sheer contempt for the public and not for any sort of security reasons.
Is that really worthy of months on end of Congressional hearings?
Hicks sounds like he is speculating a lot and was not in on most of the direct communication that his boss, Chris Stevens was privy to. Plus, even if there were there in Benghazi to get a permanent consulate set-up before the end of the fiscal year, that should be on Congress as a whole b/c they rip any unspent $$ from areas that didn't use it during the fiscal year and pork-barrel it to someone else, so to maintain your budget, you HAVE to spend and appropriate funds by the end of September no matter what. But I guess that "if" game is not good to play on either side.
In his testimony, Hicks gives no real reason as to if or why he knew that the state department was lying when they first said it was a protest/demonstration, but he speculates that they knew since he told Hillary. However, he again, wasn't too privy to a lot of the information from the State Department. It sounds like they did know that it wasn't a "protest" gone wrong pretty quickly, and a protest/demonstration is different than a terrorist attack. However, it was declared a terrorist attack after that and treated as such and the investigation is still ongoing in Benghazi, right?
As for troops/military - all of what was said in the testimony agrees that there wasn't an appropriate tactical team to arrive in time and that the nearest one wasn't equipped appropriately and couldn't fly until the next morning, when it was too late anyway. No cover-up there, just acknowledgement that the forces were in the wrong location.
So, this hearing sounds like it was just a way for people to again speculate that there was a problem, but not actually provide evidence that calling something a protest/demonstration to the public was necessary or as to why the state department might have done wanted to not call it a terrorist attack.
I guess IMO I wouldn't have wanted them to act differently if it was a terrorist attack b/c I don't believe that you should go to war for every terrorist attack - especially in the middle east. So I guess that's why most democrats are not up in arms about this. I should hope the republicans can get past this b/c even if it was a terrorist attack from the start, nobody would have gone to war or reacted differently. After the Iraq-war debacle, this administration is not going to declare war on a country without actual, concrete evidence. The US public wouldn't put up with that again...What did Bush say, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Well, it matters be government officials were blatantly lying about whether our embassy was under attack. The national security ramifications are different if we are attacked by terrorists or operatives from another country rather than a protesting mob.
Plus there is the whole issue about whether the embassy staff was surprised by a mob attack or the victims of a terrorist attack that they pretty much saw coming and asked for help to avoid.
Just because the Rs are bent on making Hillary a scapegoat and prolonging the drama, doesn't mean the appropriate people should not be held responsible for their actions.
Yes, that's exactly right. Remember there were other protests going on at other Embassies at the same time. The US felt it was in our security interest to not make the fact that it was a terrorist attack public when everything was so volatile. What are your credentials that make you qualified to second guess national security experts?
Obviously I am not going to get into my national security background on a public forum. The State dept. has never said they put out mis-information for security reasons, and there are no indications that this was the case. They keep saying they thought the information was correct, when records are showing they knew what was going on AND had warnings before it happened.
Congress denied requests for additional security funding. Congress is trying to blame-shift here.
I think the determination had been Hillary wasn't made aware appropriately of a need or requests for support or rescue, and now these guys are coming in saying, "Look, we were within a good response range and were ready to go, but were told not to."
Is that accurate? ::looks around::
The article I read says that the internal investigation of this event at the State Department has been completed for months and new communication and security measures have already been implemented for diplomatic ambassador/State Department relations on security.
Yes, that's exactly right. Remember there were other protests going on at other Embassies at the same time. The US felt it was in our security interest to not make the fact that it was a terrorist attack public when everything was so volatile. What are your credentials that make you qualified to second guess national security experts?
Obviously I am not going to get into my national security background on a public forum. The State dept. has never said they put out mis-information for security reasons, and there are no indications that this was the case. They keep saying they thought the information was correct, when records are showing they knew what was going on AND had warnings before it happened.
But again....so what?
Would it have saved lives if they told CNN that the attack was terrorism instead of protesters?
I mean, okay, worst case scenario, the government lied to the public for 14 hours about the motivation behind the attack, out of sheer contempt for the public and not for any sort of security reasons.
Is that really worthy of months on end of Congressional hearings?
The government lied for days after the attack, not hours.
I mean, okay, worst case scenario, the government lied to the public for 14 hours about the motivation behind the attack, out of sheer contempt for the public and not for any sort of security reasons.
Is that really worthy of months on end of Congressional hearings?
The government lied for days after the attack, not hours.
Okay. Again, what would have been different if they told the public that it was really terrorism?
I mean, okay, worst case scenario, the government lied to the public for 14 hours about the motivation behind the attack, out of sheer contempt for the public and not for any sort of security reasons.
Is that really worthy of months on end of Congressional hearings?
You forget we had hearings on the frickimg BCS football games. And steroids.
Obviously I am not going to get into my national security background on a public forum. The State dept. has never said they put out mis-information for security reasons, and there are no indications that this was the case. They keep saying they thought the information was correct, when records are showing they knew what was going on AND had warnings before it happened.
But again....so what?
Would it have saved lives if they told CNN that the attack was terrorism instead of protesters?
It might save lives the next time an embassy is attacked. If you don't care that the government should be accountable for their actions then "so what" is a legitimate argument.
The government lied for days after the attack, not hours.
Okay. Again, what would have been different if they told the public that it was really terrorism?
Why wouldn't it make a difference? I mean, we just had this whole thing on truthers just the other day...I'd think it would matter to some, at least people of that inclination.
I mean, okay, worst case scenario, the government lied to the public for 14 hours about the motivation behind the attack, out of sheer contempt for the public and not for any sort of security reasons.
Is that really worthy of months on end of Congressional hearings?
The government lied for days after the attack, not hours.
I think this falls under the "who cares," but it was called an "attack" and "act of terror" by Obama at 10:43am on Sept. 12, 2012 in his Rose Garden remarks. I guess that was enough to me to know that the higher ups knew something terrible had happened in the attack and were investigating it with Libya. However, I understand picking apart Obama's language at each time he spoke when you don't agree with him - I did that to Bush a lot (but Bush gave us so many more reasons to pick apart his understanding of the English language in addition to trying to decipher what he meant vs. what he said.)
I mean, okay, worst case scenario, the government lied to the public for 14 hours about the motivation behind the attack, out of sheer contempt for the public and not for any sort of security reasons.
Is that really worthy of months on end of Congressional hearings?
You forget we had hearings on the frickimg BCS football games. And steroids.
Tbf, you And I did this with the "make it hurt" and sequestration.
You and I have been around a long time and have spoken about our spouses' jobs often enough that it's pretty well known they work for agencies. Most people probably even know which ones. We were speaking from personal experience. Elise is claiming mysterious national security credentials that qualify her to second guess the President and Secretary of State. Not the same, IMO.
Would it have saved lives if they told CNN that the attack was terrorism instead of protesters?
It might save lives the next time an embassy is attacked. If you don't care that the government should be accountable for their actions then "so what" is a legitimate argument.
How might it save lives? I honestly don't understand this at all.
I do think the government should be held accountable. But I don't really think that months upon months of hearings to find out why they didn't immediately tell everyone exactly what the motivation for the attacks was is...excessive. Reprimand or fire the people who should have told the truth (if they even should have - how do we know they didn't have legitimate security reasons for not going immediately public with this information) and let's move on. Why are so many taxpayer resources being spent on this?
If we were talking about a f-up that actually cost people their lives, then yes, that is an important thing to get to the bottom of. But I haven't seen any evidence that this is what happened - all I see is "they didn't immediately tell Joe Schmoe what happened!" and I don't understand why that matters so intensely.
Would it have saved lives if they told CNN that the attack was terrorism instead of protesters?
It might save lives the next time an embassy is attacked. If you don't care that the government should be accountable for their actions then "so what" is a legitimate argument.
Is there a Congressional investigation on every embassy attack? I'm asking seriously, not snarky. I don't know.
I don't think people don't care at all, I think they are flummoxed to why Repubs care so much about this particular incident. Should someone have been fired? What is the punishment we're looking for? Some pp said changes were implemented, so I assume now someone needs to be fired? Again, asking.
It might save lives the next time an embassy is attacked. If you don't care that the government should be accountable for their actions then "so what" is a legitimate argument.
Is there a Congressional investigation on every embassy attack? I'm asking seriously, not snarky. I don't know.
I don't think people don't care at all, I think they are flummoxed to why Repubs care so much about this particular incident. Should someone have been fired? What is the punishment we're looking for? Some pp said changes were implemented, so I assume now someone needs to be fired? Again, asking.
Yes, generally there is a Congressional investigation after an embassy attack. At the very least there would be a report to Congress, which should be public record. The Benghazi investigation has taken way longer than most because the Rs would let it go. There was a lot of movement out of and around the State Dept. after the election. So it's hard to say who (if anyone) was fired and who just left.
It might save lives the next time an embassy is attacked. If you don't care that the government should be accountable for their actions then "so what" is a legitimate argument.
Is there a Congressional investigation on every embassy attack? I'm asking seriously, not snarky. I don't know.
I don't think people don't care at all, I think they are flummoxed to why Repubs care so much about this particular incident. Should someone have been fired? What is the punishment we're looking for? Some pp said changes were implemented, so I assume now someone needs to be fired? Again, asking.
Well the time my dad came back from a meeting to discover bullet holes in his desk chair, in an embassy, there wasn't any Congressional hearings. I don't even believe it made the US news or any official list of attacks on embassies. Those that live/have lived in that world aren't shocked something like this happened, just shocked it took this long and isn't happening far more often.
Again, the only reason the Rs are making a huge deal about *this* incident is that they believe they can hurt Hillary's chances in the next election. They were making a huge deal about what the attack was called and when it was called whatever at the time ONLY because they hoped it would hurt Obama's election chances. Hell, don't people remember the calls for Penetta to be held responsible back when this attack happened? Even though the DoD isn't responsible for security at embassies/consulates? They just wanted to hurt Obama from any direction possible. In fact, I not confident many Rs are too upset that Stevens was killed--I'm sure they thought he wasn't a Real American, he had far too much respect for other nations and their customs.
They don't give a crap about security at embassies or consulates. They haven't in the past, and they don't now. Unless the Rs have been proposing huge increases in the DoS Security budget and huge increases to DoS facilities budget I just haven't heard of.
Is there a Congressional investigation on every embassy attack? I'm asking seriously, not snarky. I don't know.
I don't think people don't care at all, I think they are flummoxed to why Repubs care so much about this particular incident. Should someone have been fired? What is the punishment we're looking for? Some pp said changes were implemented, so I assume now someone needs to be fired? Again, asking.
Yes, generally there is a Congressional investigation after an embassy attack. At the very least there would be a report to Congress, which should be public record. The Benghazi investigation has taken way longer than most because the Rs would let it go. There was a lot of movement out of and around the State Dept. after the election. So it's hard to say who (if anyone) was fired and who just left.
The Accountability Review Board is convened by the Secretary of State and submits their report to her/him. I'm not aware of routine Congressional investigations after Embassy attacks. Have they already happened for the attacks in Tunis, Cairo, or Ankara?
Would it have saved lives if they told CNN that the attack was terrorism instead of protesters?
It might save lives the next time an embassy is attacked. If you don't care that the government should be accountable for their actions then "so what" is a legitimate argument.
How do you know that more lives weren't actually saved in this case because it wasn't made public the US Govt knew it was a coordinated terrorist attack for a few days? If you don't understand how that time could/might have saved more lives and why this would never be revealed to the public, you don't actually understand the situation. If you truly believe that the American public has any real need to know of the real number of people saved and you don't understand how that information being public information could be a national security risk then you need to stop even hinting that you have any level of " national security background". An "Embassy" wasn't attacked--if you don't understand what was actually attacked and the national security implications, then, again, stop embarrassing yourself with claims of knowledge you don't have.
When that phone rings at 2 am and Hillary answers it - will she handle national security the same was as Benghazi? We still have no information as to who ordered the military to stand down, when we DID have people available to help? We still have no information as to why there were changes in the original statement eliminating all references to terrorist attack, Alqaeda links etc and making this about a video/protest (3rd revision) when they knew at that tine that was not the truth. Those changes were not stylistic, but totally changed the "information" given. We still do not have any information on the wherabouts of Obama for 7 hours (and Bush was raked of the coals for continuing reading to the kids for 7 minutes when 911 attack occurred) We have no information as to the communication between Hillary and Obama during the attack. The story we were given about Benghazi is full of holes and no one wants them filled.
The timing was bad for Obama and the 2012 election - as this would have been bad for him to admit that Alqaeda was still alive and well, we failed at protecting our embassy (why, when more security was repeatedly requested in the previous mmonths and it was going to be 911?) So was this purely a political coverup to keep the lead? Obama criticised Romney for his comment after the attack, but the facts coming out show that Romney was right-- I doubt we will ever get the full story, nor will there ever be enough evidence in Syria for Obama to take any action. Bush may have been wrong on Weapons of Mass Destruction, but he acted on information, the same information that was given to many nations. They all bellieved that they existed. It was not a cover up. Why does it matter? The truth always matters. And if there are things that we need to fix in our State Dept. or in communications, information gathering, we need to know where the problems exist so thay can be fixed.
The Lybian gov.t said the next day it was terrorism. We continued with days and days of our position that it was spontaneous protest & objectional video as well as an 78 million dollar apologetic video in Packistan -- (saying it was the objectional video that caused this )--- basically making the Lybian govt a liar.
The Lybian gov.t said the next day it was terrorism. We continued with days and days of our position that it was spontaneous protest & objectional video as well as an 78 million dollar apologetic video in Packistan -- (saying it was the objectional video that caused this )--- basically making the Lybian govt a liar.
Nope. The very next day, Obama called it terrorism.