LOL!Why invent a conspiracy?
why don't you ask wapo and the nyt?
that's as dumb as something cummings would sayeven the chairman of the hearing, Darrel Issa, admitted that the only thing new they found was that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack
why, the nyt reported breaking news in the op (how can you miss the very op you're discussing?)---hicks was demoted for testifying
that hicks was directed by ms mills NOT to speak to chaffetz, that hicks was directed to be accompanied at all times by a state dept attorney---also breaking
Benghazi witness: State Department told me not to speak to members of Congress | WashingtonExaminer.com
wapo yesterday (link above):
also new, potential bombshell, courtesy wapo:The testimony provided new details on the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on U.S. installations in Benghazi and their aftermath. But the new information failed to break the political logjam the attacks spawned, with Republicans and Democrats offering starkly different interpretations of what happened and who within the U.S. government is to blame.
But in expanding the narrative of the intensely politicized episode, the witnesses raised fresh questions about whether then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her deputies were sufficiently engaged in assessing the security posture of diplomatic posts last year.
which is why, according to regional security officer (rso) eric nordstrom, ambassador stevens was in libya (which failed to meet state dept security standards) in the first placeClinton was planning to travel to Libya later in the year and had signaled that she wanted the United States to turn its temporary mission in Benghazi into a formal diplomatic post.
Testimony: Stevens Went to Benghazi Mission on 9/11/12 So Clinton Could Announce on Upcoming Libyan Visit It Had Become Permanent U.S. Post | CNS News
you really need to shut up and read, else you'll always be ignorant
in addition to serious new questions of substance, yesterday's hearing also failed to answer the questions that have been at the center of this disaster since the beginning and even before, such as:
in the weeks and months before the deadly attack, when the city was subject to at least 5 serious incidents of terrorism, including an assassination attempt against the british ambassador and the blowing of a hole in the wall of the us consulate, exactly WHO at state denied so many documented requests for increased security, including those from chris stevens himself, and WHY?
why was the security team at Benghazi stripped from 16 members to only 4, after a pair were carjacked, "shortly before the attack," according to wapo above?
who made THAT call?
exactly who ordered lt col gibson to stand down and exactly why?
why was no plane sent from souba, exactly what are our response capabilities?
and if that's the best we can do, why?
why wasn't fest put into operation?
who changed the cia's original talking points, which advised the american people about the danger posed by "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda," which called out "ansar al sharia" and "jihadists," and why were such accurate descriptors scrubbed from intel's initial explanation?
why are truth tellers being punished and intimidated, threatened and demoted, why does state insist one of its lawyers accompany whistle blowers wherever they go?
why did pickering and mullen, authors arb, refuse to testify?
with whom did they speak and with whom did they not?
where are the survivors, why are they kept secret?
where was hillary all day and all nite, exactly what was she doing?
why did her boss go to bed?
y'know, elijah cummings has NO comeback (as of now) to any of the above
yesterday, my side was able to say pretty much anything we wanted, and our opposition just sat there and took it
i can tell you personally that i know that cummings is nowhere near smart enough for what you're coming up against, you need to find someone else (but you're stuck with him)
look forward to more hearings, lots of them, the loyal opposition is just getting started
you better get your lies and alibis in a row, a very long, almost endless row
boehner's gonna go special committee, nothing's gonna be able to stop em
62% of House GOP Now Co-Sponsoring Bill for Special Committee on Benghazi | CNS News
there's a great deal more i know that you don't but you can only handle so much at a time
link?your post is just whiny unsubstantiated opinion.
But you are correct, integrity is rare, even among the Right wing partisans
We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.
But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.
What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:
◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?
Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President
Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’
Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’
Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia
Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~
FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline
Which now we know that All knew it was a planned attack with Ansar al Sharia being involved. 2 hrs after the battle began. Which Rice went on the Sunday Talk Shows a week later and still stated what she did out her mouth. Despite knowing already what everyone else knew at that time. Which it was a terrorist attack. Politi-fact's timeline and UK Daily Mails also have the same .
We didn't 'know' anything but there were reports, huge difference.
For instance, BushII 'knew' the al-queeras and Saddam's security folks met in Prague. That yellow cake was bought in Africa, that 122 rocket tubes were infact rods for refining uranium...
It is easy after the fact to go through a deluge of reports and pick the correct ones... the trick has and will remain being able to do so as the event unfolds.
As far as sending more people into the cluster foxtrot, even a teary and emotional Mr. Hicks admits he wasn't easily available when the attack started in Benghazi, and when he learned where Ambassador Stevens was, the hospital, he balked at sending anyone fearing it was a trap.