I wonder if sisugal means she is Finnish- American (sisu is a Finnish word for grit/toughness). If so she and I have a lot in common - I'm half Finnish myself. It seems important to her to post this stuff - but not to actually talk about it.
John Parkinson 2 hours 17 minutes ago House Speaker John Boehner today called on the House to vote to form a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012.
"Americans learned this week that the Obama administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the people's House," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote in a statement. "These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen."
In light of the new emails, the House will vote o whether to establish a new select committee "to investigate the attack, provide the necessary accountability, and ensure justice is finally served," Boehner writes.
This week, an email from National Security Council communications adviser Ben Rhodes surfaced which coached then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice's round of interviews "to show that these protests were rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
The video Rhodes referenced was an anti-Muslim YouTube video that sparked widespread protests across the Muslim world. The document also shows the White House advised Rice that the Benghazi attack was "spontaneously inspired" by protests at the U.S. embassy in Egypt that were motivated by the anti-Muslim video.
Those emails released this week by the Obama administration "were the straw that broke the camel's back," according to a top congressional source.
"The Speaker was furious to learn that the administration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena," the source said on the condition of anonymity. "He's sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get the truth, and provide justice."
The Select Committee will likely be a bipartisan proposal, but it's unclear whether Democrats will refuse to appoint members to it. One source said the committee could be led by former prosecutor and a rising star on the Oversight Committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., according several top congressional sources.
A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi could not immediately say whether they would appoint members to the select committee.
"We've had no communication about this at all from the Speaker," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is highly unlikely to join the speaker's probe, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed that the White House's reluctance to provide information has necessitated additional action.
"The Obama administration's ongoing reluctance to provide information and documentation voluntarily to the American people and their representatives has created the need for additional action by the House of Representatives," McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in a statement. "I respect the Speaker's judgment and decision to establish a select committee-particularly in light of the involuntary release this week of additional White House communications."
While Boehner had previously seemed reluctant to back a committee to probe the Benghazi attack, he had kept the option open as several oversight committees examined the attack. Aides said the decision to move forward on a select committee was expedited after House Republican leaders and House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa "flipped out" when House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon issued a statement Thursday reacting to Brigadier General Robert Lovell's testimony at the Oversight committee.
"BG Lovell did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken," McKeon, R-Calif., stated. "In the end, while BG Lovell did not further the investigation or reveal anything new, he was another painful reminder of the agony our military felt that night; wanting to respond but unable to do so."
Lovell, who was on duty at AFRICOM headquarters in Germany during the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, testified that the State Department never requested help from the military. AFRICOM was responsible for securing the region that includes Libya.
Sources say the House Benghazi Working Group was so outraged by the McKeon statement, they planned to formally recommend Boehner form a select committee.
"The foundation for the Congressional investigation to date has been committees doing different things, but the McKeon statement has blown coordination to smithereens," one source said.
"This week's events demonstrate a new level of stonewalling and obfuscation by the administration that requires a new level of investigation," another Republican source said.
"The reasons for appointing a committee now are straightforward and twofold. For the first time, we have clear and public evidence that the White House was more involved in misleading the American people than it had previously admitted," the source said. "Second, it's now proven that the administration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena request."
While the existing investigatory committees in the House have full subpoena power, one top Republican aide said "the administration has now demonstrated it is willing to flagrantly defy such subpoena requests," compelling Boehner "to consider taking the strongest actions possible in an effort to ensure Americans have the truth about what happened."
"The Speaker has an obligation to get the truth and to defend the privileges of the House, including its oversight authority," the source explained.
This morning Issa issued a subpoena to Secretary of State John Kerry to testify at a hearing on May 21 over the Congressional investigation into the Benghazi 9/11 terrorist attack.
"Because your Department is failing to meet its legal obligations, I am issuing a new subpoena to compel you to appear before the Committee to answer questions about your agency's response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack," Issa wrote Kerry.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, jumped to Kerry's defense, describing the subpoena as a "disrespectful" affront to the secretary.
"These actions are not a responsible approach to congressional oversight, they continue a trend of generating unnecessary conflict for the sake of publicity, and they are shockingly disrespectful to the Secretary of State," Cummings said.
A spokeswoman for Cummings did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Boehner's call for a select committee.
So maybe someone else can explain the Benghazi scandal. I just don't get it. And I swear I'm not feigning ignorance; I really don't get it.
I'm here.
Back during the Bush administration, the US Attorney firing scandal made me absolutely wild. And people would be all "oh it's made up! I don't get it!" and I explained the shit out of that scandal about 8 million times, and whoever had asked the question would then disappear and never come back to the post. I felt like I was talking to myself.
So I frequently wonder if this is how the Benghazi people feel. My vague understanding is that there was some kind of blundering about what to tell the public regarding the attack on the embassy, and that it just sounds like run-of-the-mill blundering, ie typical "oh the administration should have handled that better but whatever" but am I being like the people who thought Rove's targeting of USAs for termination was no big deal?
So is Benghazi really a real scandal, and the problem is just that it's too complicated to explain in a soundbite? Or is it really just a bunch of conspiracy theories around some inconsequential PR mistake by the White House?
The only way it would be a scandal rising to the level that the Rs want it to be is if the WH ordered the attack on its own embassy. Is that anywhere in the Beghazi narrative? Otherwise, I too don't understand the hyperventilating.
The only way it would be a scandal rising to the level that the Rs want it to be is if the WH ordered the attack on its own embassy. Is that anywhere in the Beghazi narrative? Otherwise, I too don't understand the hyperventilating.
I feel like the conspiracy is that, at the very least, they know about the attacks in advance? Or the possibility of them happening was likely and known to the government?
But you can say the same thing about the previous administration and 9/11 when approximately 1000 times as many people died, so...
To add the confusion of what the scandal really is about - I thought it was that the attack was happening and the US did nothing to help its own people while it happened. The military was told either told to stand down/or not authorized to do anything from the White House. Then again, the White House has been quite vague on the issue so we don't really know the truth, thus the confusion of what it is about. I am a huge Hilary fan, but her testimony on Benghazi really made me question my Hilary devotion.
To add the confusion of what the scandal really is about - I thought it was that the attack was happening and the US did nothing to help its own people while it happened. The military was told either told to stand down/or not authorized to do anything from the White House. Then again, the White House has been quite vague on the issue so we don't really know the truth, thus the confusion of what it is about. I am a huge Hilary fan, but her testimony on Benghazi really made me question my Hilary devotion.
There really should be no confusion as to what the scandal is about. What do the Rs say this is about?
What exactly did HRC say that made you so unhappy?
Post by Velar Fricative on May 2, 2014 15:59:28 GMT -5
There was also the part where it appeared that the video is what sparked the riots and thus caused the American deaths but ultimately that turned out to be untrue (most likely), but the administration seemed to promote that cause until it turned out it wasn't really the cause.
Now, I definitely think how much Benghazi bothers you is related to how you feel about Obama (and HRC). Personally, I am annoyed with how it was handled. No question. But, well...see msmerymac's point about 9/11/01. Sure, there was outrage there but I don't recall people demanding that GWB be made to somehow pay for not preventing 9/11 (compared to, say, calls to impeach him for the Iraq War).
See lys? We ARE engaging in a discussion about this right now.
To add the confusion of what the scandal really is about - I thought it was that the attack was happening and the US did nothing to help its own people while it happened. The military was told either told to stand down/or not authorized to do anything from the White House. Then again, the White House has been quite vague on the issue so we don't really know the truth, thus the confusion of what it is about. I am a huge Hilary fan, but her testimony on Benghazi really made me question my Hilary devotion.
There really should be no confusion as to what the scandal is about. What do the Rs say this is about?
What exactly did HRC say that made you so unhappy?
She didn't answer any questions directly. And her quote "What difference, at this point, does it make?" really got to me as the whole point of the hearing was to find out what happened - perhaps to prevent another attack, defend the next one better, tell the truth to the American people??? It makes a big difference.
I honestly have no problem with this being looked into further. Maybe there is a scandal there. What I find irritating, and frankly disingenuous, is how much effort people put into "looking into" a possible scandal that at face looks less obviously scandalous than the humongous scandal that was us invading Iraq.
I just don't believe you can care so much about Benghazi but shrug off Iraq.
I haven't checked into the emails a ton, but from what I've heard on the news and the articles I've read in the paper - I don't see the issue. The WH said to emphasize that it was because of the videos, not a failure in policy. Isn't that pretty standard, saying "hey, make sure you stress this point" before someone goes on TV? It's not like they said "hey, make sure you lie to people and don't tell anyone it was really terrorism!"
I think the Rs are just harping on this constantly because it gets their base fired up, and they need a fired up base to reclaim the Senate in November.
I honestly have no problem with this being looked into further. Maybe there is a scandal there. What I find irritating, and frankly disingenuous, is how much effort people put into "looking into" a possible scandal that at face looks less obviously scandalous than the humongous scandal that was us invading Iraq.
I just don't believe you can care so much about Benghazi but shrug off Iraq.
Yes. This is exactly the problem with this. The scandal seems to be that the WH may have spun this a little. I don't recall endless Congressional hearings on the 13 Benghazis under Bush or, as summer points out, the Iraq fucking war.
Those who keep calling for inquiries just want to discredit Clinton. I don't even think they care of the ties to Obama, honestly. I saw this resurface with the release of the emails due to Rice's testimony or something (I was half-listening in the car when the news reported it and that Issa was annoyed).