• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Benghazi: State Department's ARB Panel Is Under Formal Investigation

upsideguy said:
Thank you for proving my point... ya got nothin except stuff that your active imagination has run with. You are sitting in the most sincere pumpkin patch.



Again, you have an active imagination. I am sorry you fail to see the distinction between Watergate and Benghazzi. One was a crime of deliberation; the other an unfortunate event in a troubled part of the world.

I appreciate the fact that you don't like Obama and you are searching, searching for something that can end your nightmare. Now, if Hillary can't get the deficits under control, you might have a shot in 2020.



Funny how powerful wishful thinking can be. I hope you brought your security blanket to the pumpkin patch. It still gets cold at night this time of the year.
Click to expand...

You're digging yourself a great big hole to get yourself out of if your guy can't succeed in covering up this smelly affair while you & others are left holding your putzes and looking foolish.
 
State Dept: Benghazi Whistleblowers "Lying" About Requesting Clearance To Testify | RealClearPolitics

Just a question on Benghazi. Since the Office of the Legal Advisor issued the letter with the roadmap for private counsel representing whistleblowers to seek security clearances, has anyone applied for the security clearances?

PATRICK VENTRELL, STATE DEPARTMENT ACTING SPOKESMAN: Yes. We’ve had an individual who’s been out there on TV making some unfounded and patently false accusations in previous days that she or her partner had contacted the State Department, which they hadn’t. This person suggested on TV that they had been processed for a clearance but – had not been processed for clearance, before she ever had even requested one. And so we repeatedly have this person saying that their – they had a whistleblower who’s been held back from telling their story, and we’re not aware of this individual or anyone who’s asking to tell their story. My understanding is that since these developments overnight, this person has been in contact with us and is now going through the procedures to get a security clearance. But this individual was on TV repeatedly saying that they were being held back from getting a security clearance before they’d even picked up the phone to call us.

QUESTION: Was that --

QUESTION: So have they started --

QUESTION: This person is a lawyer. This person is the lawyer.

MR. VENTRELL: This is Victoria Toensing.

QUESTION: Right. Okay.

MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And are you aware of any State Department employees who have contacted a legal advisor or anyone else saying that they would like to have a lawyer get cleared so that they could (inaudible)?

MR. VENTRELL: No, but we’re now aware of Ms. Toensing and --

QUESTION: Well, you were aware of that because she was on TV, right?

MR. VENTRELL: And now she’s been in touch with us directly to go about the normal procedure.

QUESTION: You’re saying that she wasn’t just – she was lying --

MR. VENTRELL: I’m saying she was making false statements that were unfounded that we were --

QUESTION: Making false statements is lying, isn’t it?

MR. VENTRELL: We think that --

QUESTION: Right?

MR. VENTRELL: False statements are lying, Matt. And so we had somebody who was on national television saying that we were blocking them from getting a security clearance, which was not true. (State Department Briefing, May 2, 2013)
Click to expand...

i wonder what ms toensing's client is gonna say...

y'know, next week...

when he or she is sitting in evil darrel issa's comfy chair...

i wonder if ms toensing has, y'know, the dates on those security clearance requests...

stay tuned
 
The Prof said:
State Dept: Benghazi Whistleblowers "Lying" About Requesting Clearance To Testify | RealClearPolitics



i wonder what ms toensing's client is gonna say...

y'know, next week...

when he or she is sitting in evil darrel issa's comfy chair...

i wonder if ms toensing has, y'know, the dates on those security clearance requests...

stay tuned
Click to expand...

Yesiree, should get damned interesting one way or the other. If not, then the lid has been tightened, the complete fix is in on both sides, cause one side or the other, as it seemingly stands right now, should take a good shellacking. Somebody is not telling the truth... Inquiring minds sure wanna know, too...I sure do...
 
nota bene said:
I am not willing to conclude anything. There aren't enough facts yet. I posted the link because I also didn't know any whistleblower names but now do. Why is this a problem for you?
Click to expand...
because this does not add up. we have a list of those who resent that their testimony was not more prominent in the report. but we do not know the names of those who wanted to testify but were not permitted to do so. where are they? who are they? do they even exit, or is this more neocon disinformation?

Did you already know who these people are? Do you know the names of survivors and what they have to say?
Click to expand...
no. and that is surprising since you have released the names and those who purport to offer testimony are nowhere shown

Surely, you're as interested in learning all the facts as I am. After going far beyond the requirements of his job description, Ty Woods died alone on a rooftop waiting for help that never came. I still want to know why and am willing to wait patiently as facts continue to emerge.
Click to expand...
where is the same concern for EACH and EVERY one of the 4,488 Americans who lost their lives in an iraqi war that never should have been waged. but it is those who are responsible for those deaths who now question those in benghazi
show the same interest in the lost American lives from that misbegotten misadventure we call the war in iraq
do that and then you and your side will restore some credibility. but NOT until
 
where is the same concern for EACH and EVERY one of the 4488
Click to expand...

today:

Two NATO soldiers killed in Afghan 'insider attack' - FRANCE 24

An Afghan soldier shot dead two soldiers serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force on Saturday, officials said, in the latest "insider attack" to target the coalition.

"Two International Security Assistance Force service members were killed when an Afghan National Army soldier turned his weapon against ISAF service members in western Afghanistan today," ISAF said in a statement.
Click to expand...

how do you spell jihad?

5 more americans were killed today when their armored vehicle was blown up in malwand, according to afp

more than 100 of our soldiers have now been killed over there by our "allies"

pray for those lost
 
bubbabgone said:
You're digging yourself a great big hole to get yourself out of if your guy can't succeed in covering up this smelly affair while you & others are left holding your putzes and looking foolish.
Click to expand...

I'm not in a hole... but if you want to clip this link and save it in your files throw it in my face in six months, feel free. But, it will only waste time and disk space you will never have reason to discuss it again. Its far more likely I will clip it and throw it up in six months (as I did to those telling us how the presidential polls were all wrong and Romney is going win or the fast and furious was going to be the end Obama --- seriously?)

The problem with me clipping this and bringing it up in six months is that six months from now I will have to explain to people what Benghazi was..... There is nothing of substance here... and those that think this is going to lead to an impeachment are bordering on delusional.

The problem with Cons is they are good at creating controversial/shady deals, but they aren't good at understanding equivalence. Ya got nothin here, except wishful thinking. Call us when real news organizations are carrying this... thus far all posts have been from NewsMax and CNS. Again, political porn isn't good for your mind or soul.
 
rocket88 said:
Exactly. It's a racially based attack. Thank you for admitting it.
Click to expand...

That peculiar reasoning of yours explains a great deal about your comments in general.

Was the Hillary picture a gender attack?
 
tina brown (who just fired howie): U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates - The Daily Beast

cbs: Lt Col Woods says his 16 member team pulled a month before attack - CBS News

the hill: GOP: US Consulate received repeated threats, had requested more security - The Hill's Global Affairs

wapo: White House secret meetings examine al-Qaeda threat in North Africa - The Washington Post

the hill: Report: FBI still not on scene in Benghazi - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

wsj: Militant Link to Libya Attack - WSJ.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

beast: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary - The Daily Beast

wapo: Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya - The Washington Post

ex: Dems join chorus questioning Obama on attack | WashingtonExaminer

wapo: Panetta says undetermined terrorist group carried out attack on US Consulate in Libya - The Washington Post

abc: Some Administration Officials Were Concerned About Initial White House Push Blaming Benghazi Attack on Mob, Video - ABC News

wsj: Gross Security Failure - WSJ.com

abc: Security Concerns Keep FBI From Scene of Ambassador's Murder, Official Says - ABC News

wapo: From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack - The Washington Post

youtube: Tammy Duckworth: Marines Should Have Been in Benghazi - YouTube

beast: Obama's Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast

cns: Lieberman Calls for Independent Investigation into Libyan Attack | CNS News

cnn: Exclusive: Amb. Chris Stevens worried about al Qaeda hit list – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

huffpo: CNN's Use Of Christopher Stevens' Journal Is 'Disgusting': State Dept.

cbs: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS

weekly standard: Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard

wsj: Miscues Before Libya Assault - WSJ

independent: US 'was warned of Libya embassy attack but did nothing' - Independent.ie

fox: Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault | Fox News

buzzfeed: US Embassy In Cairo Deletes Controversial Tweets

sentinel: http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/09/administration-insists-benghazi-attack-not-premeditated/

independent: Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

atlantic wire: Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List

cns: Where Was Obama on Night of Benghazi Attack?

cbs, 60 minutes: Obama Says Attacks In Libya And Egypt Are Just "Bumps In The Road" - YouTube[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
I'm not in a hole... but if you want to
clip this link and save it in your files throw it in my face in six months, feel free.
Click to expand...
But, it will only waste time and disk space you will never have reason to discuss it again. Its far more likely I will clip it and throw it up in six months (as I did to those telling us how the presidential polls were all wrong and Romney is going win or the fast and furious was going to be the end Obama --- seriously?)

The problem with me clipping this and bringing it up in six months is that six months from now I will have to explain to people what Benghazi was.....
There is nothing of substance here
Click to expand...
... and those that think this is going to lead to an impeachment are bordering on delusional.

The problem with Cons is they are good at creating controversial/shady deals, but they aren't good at understanding equivalence.
Ya got nothin here
Click to expand...
, except wishful thinking. Call us when real news organizations are carrying this... thus far all posts have been from NewsMax and CNS. Again, political porn isn't good for your mind or soul.
Click to expand...


Ya got the classic dodges down, I'll give ya that.
As for 6 months from now, given what we already know at this point that you won't acknowledge, is there really any chance atball you'd admit your guy & his SofS effed up big time?
Or to look at it another way, what would it take for you to finally admit it?
 
justabubba said:
because this does not add up. we have a list of those who resent that their testimony was not more prominent in the report. but we do not know the names of those who wanted to testify but were not permitted to do so. where are they? who are they? do they even exit, or is this more neocon disinformation?


no. and that is surprising since you have released the names and those who purport to offer testimony are nowhere shown


where is the same concern for EACH and EVERY one of the 4,488 Americans who lost their lives in an iraqi war that never should have been waged. but it is those who are responsible for those deaths who now question those in benghazi
show the same interest in the lost American lives from that misbegotten misadventure we call the war in iraq
do that and then you and your side will restore some credibility. but NOT until
Click to expand...

Therein lies a difference. Iraq was considered and Actual War. Do you have anything that Says Libya was an Actual War? Not a Civil war that we all know it was. But an Actual War wherein War was declared. In War there will be casualties.....although, when was the Last time An Ambassador was even killed in an actual War?

What does it matter what their names are.....they will testify. All you can do is hope no more Dirt comes out to prove more Negligence, More Incompetency and of course more excuses by those on the left to trivialize the Anniversary of 911.

U know the Anniversary of 911 that don't mean **** to those MOST of those on the left. Which is why it has been trivialized ever since Team Obama screwed the Pooch.
 
bubbabgone said:
Ya got the classic dodges down, I'll give ya that.
As for 6 months from now, given what we already know at this point that you won't acknowledge, is there really any chance atball you'd admit your guy & his SofS effed up big time?
Or to look at it another way, what would it take for you to finally admit it?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me.....they could have a picture with 5 witnesses and they would still deny anything took place. As you notice.....99.99% of them can't even bring up all that was involved over the issue. Nor do they have anything to counter with.....other than Team Obamas talking points.

Most cannot even figure out there was more in play than just the Attack on Benghazi. What was that saying by the GUMP. Stupid is as Stupid does.
 
upsideguy said:
I'm not in a hole... but if you want to clip this link and save it in your files throw it in my face in six months, feel free. But, it will only waste time and disk space you will never have reason to discuss it again. Its far more likely I will clip it and throw it up in six months (as I did to those telling us how the presidential polls were all wrong and Romney is going win or the fast and furious was going to be the end Obama --- seriously?)

The problem with me clipping this and bringing it up in six months is that six months from now I will have to explain to people what Benghazi was..... There is nothing of substance here... and those that think this is going to lead to an impeachment are bordering on delusional.

The problem with Cons is they are good at creating controversial/shady deals, but they aren't good at understanding equivalence. Ya got nothin here, except wishful thinking. Call us when real news organizations are carrying this... thus far all posts have been from NewsMax and CNS. Again, political porn isn't good for your mind or soul.
Click to expand...

I see... So you, and other libs are going to cling to this absurd defense of the One until media matters, or daily KOS admits that the One is guilty eh?

You tie yourself in knots asking others for classified info, or names that libs in power have been hiding as if we ate privy to it. It's a silly game.

As much as I believe that Obama is horrible for this country, it will be a stain on the country to watch him be impeached, and resign. That means Biden is in charge. Oh no!!!!

However, this total lying to the people has to stop!
 
bubbabgone said:
That peculiar reasoning of yours explains a great deal about your comments in general.

Was the Hillary picture a gender attack?
Click to expand...

No. Because nothing about it referred to her being a woman. It would have made just a much sense if it were John Kerry. As you yourself said, referring to Kwanzaa would not have made sense if made about a white guy. Or an asian or anything other than black. It is racial-specific.
 
rocket88 said:
No. Because nothing about it referred to her being a woman. It would have made just a much sense if it were John Kerry. As you yourself said, referring to Kwanzaa would not have made sense if made about a white guy. Or an asian or anything other than black. It is racial-specific.
Click to expand...

I see.
Then if I had shown W. Bush sweeping Iraq under the carpet and said he was doing Weihnachten Cleanup that would have been racial-specific also.
 
MMC said:
Are you kidding me.....they could have a picture with 5 witnesses and they would still deny anything took place. As you notice.....99.99% of them can't even bring up all that was involved over the issue. Nor do they have anything to counter with.....other than Team Obamas talking points.

Most cannot even figure out there was more in play than just the Attack on Benghazi. What was that saying by the GUMP. Stupid is as Stupid does.
Click to expand...

Something needs to be said here ... you have become the DP source for all things Benghazi.

And seeing the comments from other posters it occurs to me that within DP exists a microcosm of the media treatment of the shameful affair.

On the one hand we have a search for truth by Fox and some print & on-line sources (that would be you and some others here) and on the other we have the majority of the media (that would be the Obama die-hard supporters we see gasping for the air of deliverance despite all evidence to the contrary).

Curious how that always seems to play out the same way.
 
rocket88 said:
No. Because nothing about it referred to her being a woman. It would have made just a much sense if it were John Kerry. As you yourself said, referring to Kwanzaa would not have made sense if made about a white guy. Or an asian or anything other than black. It is racial-specific.
Click to expand...

But acknowledging that showing Hillary & Barry (and even Kerry) sweeping Benghazi under the rug makes sense is a huge step forward.
 
bubbabgone said:
Something needs to be said here ... you have become the DP source for all things Benghazi.

And seeing the comments from other posters it occurs to me that within DP exists a microcosm of the media treatment of the shameful affair.

On the one hand we have a search for truth by Fox and some print & on-line sources (that would be you and some others here) and on the other we have the majority of the media (that would be the Obama die-hard supporters we see gasping for the air of deliverance despite all evidence to the contrary).

Curious how that always seems to play out the same way.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:

I believe most people just want to hear the truth about what happened!. There were too many early conflicting statements made on TV by administration officials that we later learned were not true. Unfortunately they kept repeating those stories even after they were admitted to be inaccurate. This is either ineptness, or a deliberate attempt to cover up mistakes that were made. People died who were pleading for help, and that does NOT sit well with most people! :thumbdown: I am not saying the inaction was deliberate, for whatever reason, but until we hear the truth, it does look that way!
 
There's one problem with all of this "The ARB is being investigated!" thing - it is a routine look at an ARB report. The IG stated it would be looking at the ARB report BEFORE the hearings started.

This is from Foreign Policy, Nov. 1, 2012
State Department to review its own Benghazi review | The Cable

The State Department Inspector General's office has drawn up plans to conduct several reviews of the State Department's handling of embassy security and the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, including a review of the State Department's own internal review.
...

The State Department's acting Inspector General Harold Geisel wrote an Oct. 26 letter, obtained by The Cable, to Senate Homeland Security Committee heads Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), outlining several reviews his office has already started and some they are about to start to determine if embassy security around the world is sufficient, being implemented properly, and if that was a factor in the attack that killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

One of their tasks will be to keep tabs on the proceedings of the State Department's own review of the Benghazi attack, which is being conducted by an Accountability Review Board (ARB) led by former Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and including former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.
Click to expand...

Now the Raging Mustache, John Bolton, stated in an email to Jennifer Rubin, that “Zowie!, “I’ve never heard of anything like it!” He emphasized, “I’ve never heard of an IG investigating an ARB. I don’t think there have been that many ARB’s which is what makes it unusual.”. Why is that interesting? Oh maybe because there was an IG investigation of an ARB in 2004 when John Bolton was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, working for Condoleeza Rice. Yet once again Bolton lies in an attack on the present Administration.
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:

I believe most people just want to hear the truth about what happened!. There were too many early conflicting statements made on TV by administration officials that we later learned were not true. Unfortunately they kept repeating those stories even after they were admitted to be inaccurate. This is either ineptness, or a deliberate attempt to cover up mistakes that were made. People died who were pleading for help, and that does NOT sit well with most people! :thumbdown: I am not saying the inaction was deliberate, for whatever reason, but until we hear the truth, it does look that way!
Click to expand...


I wonder if Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) will be allowed to speak during the Issa hearing.
Democratic Congressman Refuses To Let Republicans Ignore GOP Security Budget Cuts In New Benghazi Hearing | ThinkProgress

In a heated exchange on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Lynch pointed out that Republicans voted against additional funding for embassy security when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requested it:

LYNCH: When Secretary Clinton and the State Department asked for additional funding for embassy security, [Republicans] all voted no. They all voted no.

WALLACE: We’re getting a little bit off track now. I understand there’s an issue about security. It’s a little bit off the track. I want to stay on course here –

LYNCH: No, this is the point. They’re complaining about a lack of security at the embassies after they voted against funding for security at the embassies. Is that not related?
Click to expand...

If you refuse to click the link to ThinkProgress because it is a "known radical leftist" site, you are missing out on a video clip from the FoxNews Wallace Show which verifies the printed words here.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Bubba. :2wave:

I believe most people just want to hear the truth about what happened!.
Click to expand...
There were too many early conflicting statements made on TV by administration officials that we later learned were not true. Unfortunately they kept repeating those stories even after they were admitted to be inaccurate. This is either ineptness, or a deliberate attempt to cover up mistakes that were made. People died who were pleading for help, and that does NOT sit well with most people! :thumbdown:
I am not saying the inaction was deliberate,
Click to expand...
for whatever reason, but until we hear the truth, it does look that way!
Click to expand...

I lean toward the "notion" that motivation #1 was to get Obama past the election so there was an eagerness to repeat the storyline that State & the WH created to minimize responsibility for what happened.
And now we still see residue of that eagerness in order to protect Obama & keep Hillary viable.
 
upsideguy said:
Yes, and the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster. Obama is the Manchurian candidate.

This story has already exceeded its allotted 15 minutes. Isn't there a section called Conspiracy Theories where persons of such proclivities can exhaust themselves debating such nonsense?

That all said, I for one, appreciate the frustration on Con brethren must feel dealing with the most scandal free administration since Bush I or Carter. They are forced to create these things just to entertain themselves. You spend enough time in the most sincere pumpkin patch and you are bound to see the Great Pumpkin eventually (if you don't freeze to death first).
Click to expand...

I see your in favor of coverups, incompetence, ignorance, and just plain don't give a **** about our embassy being destroyed and 4 of our people being slaughtered. That would be Obama.
 
bubbabgone said:
Something needs to be said here ... you have become the DP source for all things Benghazi.

And seeing the comments from other posters it occurs to me that within DP exists a microcosm of the media treatment of the shameful affair.

On the one hand we have a search for truth by Fox and some print & on-line sources (that would be you and some others here) and on the other we have the majority of the media (that would be the Obama die-hard supporters we see gasping for the air of deliverance despite all evidence to the contrary).

Curious how that always seems to play out the same way.
Click to expand...

Well I am not the only one here.....the Prof has been up on this as well. Plus there are others.

I would look up the threads on Benghazi.....I had pics of the Embassy the compound. The route they took. Also check out those on the 23 Muslim Countries that rose up.

Moreover, all acts like it hard to pin down Obama and what he was doing during the Election and around Sept. Especially after the polls started reporting him being down. We knew where he was on the 10th. Despite his Team taking down the schedule for that day. We know what time the attack took place. Plus that AQ had released a statement for 911....18hrs prior to the attack.

We also know that Obama was not talking about Libya or Benghazi until after his Debate with Romney and after the attack. So I think it is important to get those speeches from the prior half day from the attack. Play them.....and let Obama's own words and actions. Plus that **** eating grin when he thought he was coming off cool with the cuff. Show exactly where his mindset was at the time.

Which again.....IMO and my assessment. Was not on any of his Foreign Policy. But that of Smashing on Romney, Fundraising and partying. Leading to the Bottomline.....he dropped the ball on the Anniversary of 911, and let down not only those who Died. But that of the Entire Country. Lets not ever forget how his Re-election was more important to him than anything else other than his family.

Now all he is doing is the double dribble.....and the crossover and carry. 1 Step forward 2 steps back! ;)
 
Somerville said:
I wonder if Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) will be allowed to speak during the Issa hearing.


If you refuse to click the link to ThinkProgress because it is a "known radical leftist" site, you are missing out on a video clip from the FoxNews Wallace Show which verifies the printed words here.
Click to expand...

1) If Lynch is on the committee he can speak at the hearing.
2) Wallace tried to get Lynch to stick to the topic which was the coverup.
3) Chaffetz attempted to respond to what Lynch said but was cut off by Wallace before he finished - didn't you see that when it happened this morning?
 
Somerville said:
I wonder if Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) will be allowed to speak during the Issa hearing.


If you refuse to click the link to ThinkProgress because it is a "known radical leftist" site, you are missing out on a video clip from the FoxNews Wallace Show which verifies the printed words here.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Somerville. :2wave:

Exactly! It appears there are plenty of explanations to be made here, from both sides of the aisle. Let's just hear the truth! If Ambassadors and Seals aren't safe, where does that leave the rest of us? :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom