• 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!

GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?


  • Total voters
    72
I have only a few questions? Did the administration let four great American citizens die for politics? If so, no crime but disgusting. Did we exhaust all resources and the four deaths were an inevitability? If so, well, that's life and it is horrible that they died.

Is there an active obstruction of justice? That is a major problem if so, it's actually what took Nixon down during Watergate, not the burglary itself(over eager campaign staffers) and even then nobody died.
 
I don't think the anger over this has to do with the consulate being attacked. Embassies and consulates get attacked, it happens. I think the anger is over the response to the attack, at least for those who are legitimately angry and not just grand standing.
If people died for politics I'm angry, if we did everything possible I'm angry only at the attackers.
 
It is not the embassy being attacked that is the issue here. There are four main questions in regard to Benghazi.

Why was the ambassadors request for more security denied?

Why wasn't help sent when the embassy came under attack?

Where was Obama for the seven hours this attack went on?

Why did the White House lie to us about this being a terrorist attack?

Heya SL. :2wave: Perhaps this will help to shed some light on things. Here is a Writer that worked for AP. He now went to work for the National Journal. Perhaps you may recall the Name. Ron Fournier.

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton
Both parties are wrong about the scandal: It’s not Watergate and it’s not nothing.

Both parties are wrong about Benghazi. Existing evidence does not point to a far-reaching cover-up on the scale of Watergate, as Republicans want you to believe. But it is not, as the White House claims, nothing.

The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government.
If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.
Credibility is Obama’s strong suit, a key reason why his personal approval ratings continue to buoy soft job approval scores. He can’t afford to lose that trust.
Credibility is Clinton’s vulnerability, dating to the unjustified financial accusations that triggered the Whitewater investigation. Doubts persisted about her veracity and authenticity throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.

Where the administration is most vulnerable is on questions of trust – an issue that, once exposed, can impact how votes consider the president’s words and deeds on all matters. This should be the White House's greatest concern after Wednesday’s hearing on the events leading to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and two security officers. Four points:

The original sin: It took the president and his team too long to acknowledge the fact that armed Islamic militants had penetrated the diplomatic compound. Coming as it did during a tense re-election race the administration’s determined reluctance to use the word “terrorists” seems informed, if not driven, by political considerations. When United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice suggested on Sunday talk shows days after the attack that it had begun with protests against an anti-Muslim video, high-ranking diplomat Gregory Hicks said, “I was stunned. My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.”

The call. Hicks’ emotional testimony Wednesday accused the administration of political machinations and bullying. Hicks told lawmakers that he was ordered not to talk to members of Congress about the attack. When he did so anyhow, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from the meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff. Mills is well-respected and known for her fierce loyalty to Clinton. If Hicks is to be believed, issuing a no-communications order is an inherently political act and, by definition, a blow for transparency.

The demotion. Hicks told lawmakers he was given a scathing review of his management style after the attacks and was later “effectively demoted.” The State Department strongly denies his account, saying it had not and would not retaliate against Hicks. We don’t know who is telling the truth, but Hicks’ testimony forced Obama’s aides to make a devil’s choice between letting the allegations stand or calling a respected and long-serving diplomat, effectively, a liar. They chose the latter.

The review. The administration’s review of Benghazi criticized the “grossly inadequate” security at the diplomatic compound and led to the dismissal of four State Department officials. Witnesses said the investigation, led by veteran retired diplomat Thomas Pickering, was inadequate. “They stopped short of interviewing people who I personally know were involved in key decisions,” testified Eric Nordstrom, an official in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The testimony of these credible whistleblowers may raise doubts in voters' minds about how honestly the Obama administration faced its failings. Despite that, the Pickering report is a scathing indictment of State Department security efforts on Clinton's watch. If she runs for president, embassy security will be a credible and durable issue.....snip~

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton - NationalJournal.com
 
Everything the gubmint does is a partisan disgrace. Whether or not they're handling it well is different than asking whether or not this needs to be investigated. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it should not be investigated. That level of partisanship would be far beyond disgraceful.

Well, at least this time.....it is Democrats now saying they want more hearings and not just the Repubs. So that is a change up this hearing brought with it.

Might have to do with the fact of realizing those in these positions need to know they can trust in their government. That if harm comes their way. That we will do everything in our power to come and get them out. That a Benghazi can never happen again. People need to be operating without hesitation and concerns over questioning that what will happen if they do this or that. Clear Warning signs cannot be ignored. Even Clintons own review hit the State up over their own failures with security.

Clearly there is a lot of miscommunication taking place and non communication as well Like Panetta and General Dempsey testifying that the State never requested assets. Then testifying that from 2am til the next morning that neither had talked to Clinton. Panetta saying he talked to Obama Once. The same with Clinton. Then Hicks validating that Clinton only called Libya once. That Clapper didn't contact other Dept heads as well. So IMO these issues need to be resolved. As they cannot be allowed to take place going forward. These people need to be in touch with their people of their respective Depts and on top of their jobs. When such events happen.

If whatever Administration is out misleading the people, and even if it wasn't their intention to do so. Then they need to address that issue and clarify even if it admits that it's initial assessment was wrong.
 
When hard evidence is brought to prove that there were deliberate lies, not just the media/political spewing of picked-apart words during the confusion in the after attack, I'll look at it. Last I heard the CIA admitted that the talking points given to UN Ambassador Rice had been "reworked" before she received them. The actual reports submitted by bi-partisian investigations have either been cherry-picked for quotes or totally ignored. Husby had Fox News on over the weekend, and they are still harping about Rice's words, when was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack and who knew what when... all crap from a couple weeks after the incident, when Libya was saying one thing and DC was trying to figure out what happened, while being denied access to the site itself.

Everything else is pure, unadulterated fabrication, speculation, commentary, and partisian bull****.

I don't have much respect for either the republicans or the democrats when it comes to partisian smokescreens and slight of hand. This time it's the republicans. Next time it'll be the democrats. Bull**** all around.

Try the Fact Checkers.....it might help you to understand beyond the Generalities of the issue. As well as lead you to references that don't care about what either side is saying. Myself I went those and more with overseas sources Reporting. As I was tired of the Left blaming Fox and the Right Blaming the US MSM.
 
noonan does a good job of summing the situation up, it fact, hits the nail on the head.


The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi


Why couldn't the administration tolerate the idea that Benghazi was a planned terrorist event? Because they didn't want this attack dominating the headline with an election coming. It would open the administration to criticism of its intervention in Libya. President Obama had supported overthrowing Muammar Gadhafi and put U.S. force behind the Libyan rebels. Now Libyans were killing our diplomats. Was our policy wrong? More importantly, the administration's efforts against al Qaeda would suddenly come under scrutiny and questioning. The president, after the killing of Osama bin Laden, had taken to suggesting al Qaeda was over. Al Qaeda was done. But if an al Qaeda offshoot in Libya was killing our diplomats, the age of terrorism was not over.

The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi - WSJ.com
 
So you disagree with a military order, yawn. This must be the first time someone in the chain of command screwed up. Sound the trumpets.
If any of you really cared about American lives you would be pushing for more money for Embassy security instead of this nonsense.
Turning the death of an ambassador into this 3 ring circus for political gain is despicable.

That's cute. Half the people you are talking to are involved in national security and have put their lives on the line for "American lives", but hey, you've got a partisan edge here and you aren't going to abandon it for a little thing like actual intellectual dedication to the truth.

Everyone who liked this, you are only embarrassing yourselves.
 
If people died for politics I'm angry, if we did everything possible I'm angry only at the attackers.

How is that even possible? What political advantage do their deaths give anyone? At least have something sensible to complain about like the fact that money for Embassy security was cut perhaps?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'
 
How is that even possible? What political advantage do their deaths give anyone? At least have something sensible to complain about like the fact that money for Embassy security was cut perhaps?


Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

That was debunked By the Fact Checkers......

◾Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.

Biden’s Libya Claims

Biden claimed that Ryan “cut embassy security in his budget $300 million below what we asked for.” That’s an exaggeration. The fiscal year 2012 funding was $264 million less than the administration had requested, and the funding isn’t only for security. It covers construction and maintenance as well.


Biden: Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one.

The Obama administration requested $1.801 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to The Hill newspaper. And House Republicans came back with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. Ultimately, the Republican-controlled House agreed to increase funding to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

Biden also claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of security concerns among U.S. officials in Libya before the attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The vice president said: “[W]e weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.”

We can’t say whether requests for more security — which were denied — reached the top. But American officials who worked in Libya over the summer placed the blame on a deputy assistant secretary of state — not top administration officials — when testifying before Congress this week.

Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, said: “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources.”

Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team, testified: ”We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.”

They placed the blame squarely on Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, according to Foreign Policy magazine.....snip~

FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations
 
That was debunked By the Fact Checkers......

◾Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.

Biden’s Libya Claims

Biden claimed that Ryan “cut embassy security in his budget $300 million below what we asked for.” That’s an exaggeration. The fiscal year 2012 funding was $264 million less than the administration had requested, and the funding isn’t only for security. It covers construction and maintenance as well.


Biden: Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one.

The Obama administration requested $1.801 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to The Hill newspaper. And House Republicans came back with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. Ultimately, the Republican-controlled House agreed to increase funding to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

Biden also claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of security concerns among U.S. officials in Libya before the attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The vice president said: “[W]e weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.”

We can’t say whether requests for more security — which were denied — reached the top. But American officials who worked in Libya over the summer placed the blame on a deputy assistant secretary of state — not top administration officials — when testifying before Congress this week.

Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, said: “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources.”

Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team, testified: ”We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.”

They placed the blame squarely on Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, according to Foreign Policy magazine.....snip~

FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations

Why did Chaffetz lie then?
 
Why did Chaffetz lie then?

He didn't evidently.....did he?

One -- which was noted by several fact-checkers in the aftermath of the debate -- is that Ryan, as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put forward such severe cuts in his budget proposal that, running the numbers, embassy security funding would suffer a cut of $300 million.

The second was was to compare the relevant budget lines in the president’s proposed fiscal year 2012 budget to the amount passed by the House of Representatives last year.

We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):

Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion
Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million

Total: $2.64 billion

Cuts from Ryan’s proposed budget

The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget has run the numbers in the Ryan budget and argues that it will cut non-defense discretionary spending as a whole by 19 percent between 2013 and 2014. A 19 percent cut to a $2.64 billion line item works out to just over $500 million -- even more than the number Biden cited.

Leaving aside whether this percentage is accurate, using it in this context is problematic. First, it’s not an immediate cut -- according to OMB, the 19 percent cut would happen in the second year of Ryan’s budget, with the first year representing a 5 percent cut.

More importantly, as the Romney-Ryan campaign noted in an interview -- and as we have written in the past -- all of this is a speculative proposition. Ryan’s budget did not reduce federal expenditures across the board, and assuming that every item under Ryan’s budget would be cut equally isn’t the most accurate way to look at it. (That said, the lack of detail in Ryan’s plan has left the Romney-Ryan ticket open to such attacks.)

Cuts in spending already passed by Congress

Using the second justification -- comparing Obama’s request to what the GOP-controlled House voted to spend for fiscal year 2012 -- has the advantage of not being speculative. Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded):

Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion
Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million

Total: $2.31 billion

The difference between these two amounts is nearly $327 million -- a bit above the $300 million Biden cited.

Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.

But this approach has problems as well. For starters, Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.)

The main problem with Biden’s claim, however, is that it’s not really what he was referring to in his claim from the debate. Biden said Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," but what passed the House wasn’t Ryan’s budget blueprint -- it was an actual spending bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee.

This may be a distinction of interest only to budget wonks, but by muddying the difference, Biden is able to hold up Ryan’s budget -- a long-standing target of Democratic attacks for its approach to Medicare and other federal programs -- as the perpetrator of the cuts, rather than the more obscure appropriations bill.....snip~

PolitiFact | Joe Biden says Paul Ryan cut embassy security by $300 million
 
That was debunked By the Fact Checkers......

◾Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.
So gates and walls don't get upgraded/built and old ones are in disrepair. Yeah, that makes sense.


You can't cut their budget by 15% then bitch because it wasn't good enough.
 
So gates and walls don't get upgraded/built and old ones are in disrepair. Yeah, that makes sense.


You can't cut their budget by 15% then bitch because it wasn't good enough.

They didn't......

Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.....snip~
 
They didn't......

Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.....snip~
But not when it was desperately needed at first.
As we rightly do for RED states.
Most cons aren't ignorant enough to argue this one. Please continue until 2014.
 
But not when it was desperately needed at first.
As we rightly do for RED states.
Most cons aren't ignorant enough to argue this one. Please continue until 2014.

Try again.....that's from Politi Fact and Fact Check. org. Moreover you missed Hicks, Thompsons and Nordstrom's Testimony? Which one do you think is the Democrat and voted for Hillary?
 
Yes, it's become another partisian witch-hunt that Fox News runs 24/7 while certain preening republican congress-critters are using to taint potential democratic candidates in 2016. It's pretty disgraceful, that disgraceful is SOP for congress nowadays, on both sides of the aisle.

Issa is now and always has been an exceptionally smelly partisian turd in an overflowing toilet. I'm ashamed he's from my state.

You're just as partisan, by overlooking the fact that ABC News and other networks are now looking at this and asking questions.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

The Benghazi Scandal Grows | The Weekly Standard

ATTORNEY: Whistleblower Greg Hicks Told To Take Desk Job or Be Terminated - YouTube

Rep. Chaffetz: Hillary Clinton must testify again about Benghazi attacks | WashingtonExaminer.com

Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi - NationalJournal.com

Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi - CNN.com

BBC News - Benghazi attack: Hicks 'stunned' at Rice explanation

US officials blocked rescue efforts while Benghazi burned, Congress told | World news | guardian.co.uk

Maybe it's time you rethink your position on this. I'm waiting for the Media Matters hit piece on CNN, now that'll be something to see.
 
Try again.....that's from Politi Fact and Fact Check. org. Moreover you missed Hicks, Thompsons and Nordstrom's Testimony? Which one do you think is the Democrat and voted for Hillary?

I was so quick to jump on the 60 number, I missed the million behind it. I was and am still bitter about the games the House continues to play with real human beings, like the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Like the victims of sequestration. I may be jumping topics, but I could care less about Benghazi, except for the victims and their families, as gunners would say about Newtown. With Rove's new ads on Hillary, Dems keep forgetting politics is not a game and Repubs don't play. They fight 24/7 and I do too except when I sleep or teach the Creator's children.
 
I was so quick to jump on the 60 number, I missed the million behind it. I was and am still bitter about the games the House continues to play with real human beings, like the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Like the victims of sequestration. I may be jumping topics, but I could care less about Benghazi, except for the victims and their families, as gunners would say about Newtown. With Rove's new ads on Hillary, Dems keep forgetting politics is not a game and Repubs don't play. They fight 24/7 and I do too except when I sleep or teach the Creator's children.

Linc, why did you take nimbutt's identity?
 

Then Fournier printed this piece up.....course now that he works for the National Journal. He will be accused of being a Right Winger.

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton
Both parties are wrong about the scandal: It’s not Watergate and it’s not nothing.

Both parties are wrong about Benghazi. Existing evidence does not point to a far-reaching cover-up on the scale of Watergate, as Republicans want you to believe. But it is not, as the White House claims, nothing.

The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government.

If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.

Credibility is Obama’s strong suit, a key reason why his personal approval ratings continue to buoy soft job approval scores. He can’t afford to lose that trust.

Credibility is Clinton’s vulnerability, dating to the unjustified financial accusations that triggered the Whitewater investigation. Doubts persisted about her veracity and authenticity throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton - NationalJournal.com
 
They didn't......

Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.....snip~
Which is still short of what was originally asked for. Either this stuff is important or it isn't. Obviously Congress didn't think it was as important as State did.
 
Linc, why did you take nimbutt's identity?

Actually, I was unaware there was a "proud nimby" out there until after the fact. My take on NIMBY is similar to yours on being a liberal. I can seethe at the GOP for not cutting in their back yards or vote for bills they used to support just to stymie O-Bam-Bam without worrying about what the Basement crew thinks around here. I do need to be more careful in being set up for infractions.
 
Which is still short of what was originally asked for. Either this stuff is important or it isn't. Obviously Congress didn't think it was as important as State did.

Well Like the Fact Checkers stated.....Started out with Obama's Budget for 2012. Which he himself reduced. Then like they also stated, he is partially to blame for that since he signed the Bill. ;)
 
Actually, I was unaware there was a "proud nimby" out there until after the fact. My take on NIMBY is similar to yours on being a liberal. I can seethe at the GOP for not cutting in their back yards or vote for bills they used to support just to stymie O-Bam-Bam without worrying about what the Basement crew thinks around here. I do need to be more careful in being set up for infractions.

There is only one person responsible for infractions and that is each poster...
 
There is only one person responsible for infractions and that is each poster...

What about my response to your question? Same old AP. And JH for that matter. Sirius 26 is good right now. Knockin' on Heaven's door
 
What about my response to your question? Same old AP. And JH for that matter. Sirius 26 is good right now. Knockin' on Heaven's door

When your rhetoric is toned down, I might address your responses, but like some with some others here, I don't care to go down the rat hole of constant back and forth where there is no useful exchange...
 
Back
Top Bottom