• 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!

Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?


  • Total voters
    79
The difference is that the President and his cabinet lied to us for two weeks and planted a false story about the attacks on Benghazi were inspired by a youtube video.

And then the administration recognized its mistake and said it was an act of terror.

And that is why Romney got in trouble " trying to use Benghazi to score political points during the second presidential debate.
 
I watched that remark in its full context. It was a despicable response to a serious inquiry designed to deflect attention from the question and drive people to an emotional visceral political stance, where the focus shifts to taking sides instead of finding answers. She achieved this goal to some extent as evidenced by all the folks on this board who do not want answers.
Baloney, here is the whole conversation:

Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.

Clinton: Thank you.

Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time -- and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time -- were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?

Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.

Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?

Clinton: No, sir.

Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to -- or have you ever spoken to -- the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?

Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --

Johnson: Approximately?

Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.

Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?

Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?

Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?


Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the --

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?


Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.


Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.​

In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make' comment
 
Actually, it says a lot more about you. Why does it matter if the attackers were motivated by anger over a youtube video or anger over something else? Why would it be worse if it was a coordinated al Qaeda attack timed to "commemorate" 9/11? Does it make the security lapse any more egregious? Does it make anyone more dead?

The senior officer present went down with his mission; what more does the right want?
 
Baloney, here is the whole conversation:

Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.

Clinton: Thank you.

Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time -- and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time -- were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?

Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.

Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?

Clinton: No, sir.

Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to -- or have you ever spoken to -- the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?

Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --

Johnson: Approximately?

Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.

Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?

Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?

Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?


Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the --

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?


Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.


Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear,
it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime
.




Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.​

In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make' comment


Amazing ... read it Pete ... absorb it Pete ... understand it Pete ... she contradicts herself in an effort to cover all the bases.
And she didn't acknowledge that she was pretty much the first person to trot out those talking points she said were being looked into.
Would have been a perfect opportunity to mention that, huh.
And, btw, have they brought them to justice?
 
Actually, it says a lot more about you. Why does it matter if the attackers were motivated by anger over a youtube video or anger over something else? Why would it be worse if it was a coordinated al Qaeda attack timed to "commemorate" 9/11? Does it make the security lapse any more egregious? Does it make anyone more dead?

It seems it did matter with the Obama White House that it was all about a Youtube video. It was all about getting Obama reelected and covering up the incompetencies of Hillary Clinton and Obama.
 
It seems it did matter with the Obama White House that it was all about a Youtube video. It was all about getting Obama reelected and covering up the incompetencies of Hillary Clinton and Obama.
I'm confused. How does saying the attacks sprang out of a protest cover up failures in security? Is it somehow okay if protesters kill Americans, but not al Qaeda?
 
Amazing ... read it Pete ... absorb it Pete ... understand it Pete ... she contradicts herself in an effort to cover all the bases.
And she didn't acknowledge that she was pretty much the first person to trot out those talking points she said were being looked into.
Would have been a perfect opportunity to mention that, huh.
And, btw, have they brought them to justice?

The CIA developed the talking points CIA Strikes Back On Benghazi - The Daily Beast
The CIA also took out the alQaida reference because that information was classified.
No, they have not brought them to justice, that's something you can't guarentee. Bush didn't get OBL dead or alive either.
This is all politically motivated by the Republicans.
 
The CIA developed the talking points CIA Strikes Back On Benghazi - The Daily Beast
The CIA also took out the alQaida reference because that information was classified.
No, they have not brought them to justice, that's something you can't guarentee. Bush didn't get OBL dead or alive either.
This is all politically motivated by the Republicans.

The CIA didn't blame the video.
That came from somewhere else.
Where?
 
And then the administration recognized its mistake and said it was an act of terror.

And that is why Romney got in trouble " trying to use Benghazi to score political points during the second presidential debate.

It was not a mistake. It was an outright bald faced lie. And I do not care about Romney.
 
The CIA didn't blame the video.
That came from somewhere else.
Where?
"It’s tucked inside the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi, which reveals a key source of the bad intelligence that made it into Ambassador Susan Rice’s famous talking points: the media incorrectly reported that before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 there were protests outside the U.S. facilities in Benghazi when there weren’t. And the CIA believed those reports, resulting in talking points that were delivered to Ambassador Susan Rice, who told the nation on several Sunday news programs Sept. 16 that the attacks in Benghazi were “a spontaneous reaction” to protests that had occurred on the same day in Cairo against an anti-Islamic video published in the U.S." — "A Benghazi Scandal That’s Already Been Revealed: The CIA Believed A Media Mistake." Time. May 8, 2014
 
Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.
 
I'm confused. How does saying the attacks sprang out of a protest cover up failures in security? Is it somehow okay if protesters kill Americans, but not al Qaeda?

What are you talking about ?

The White House didn't initiate the cover up untill after four Americans were dead.

Right now it looks like Hillary Clinton was incompetent as Secretary of State and Barack Obama as CnC was in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, dereliction of duty.
 
Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.

It appears that you progressives are getting very nervous about the Benghazi hearings.
 
Why justify avoiding answers in this case? The past occurrences have nothing to do with the question at hand, it's just a diversion. Focus.

No . . . the clamor over Benghazi is the diversion.
 
It appears that you progressives are getting very nervous about the Benghazi hearings.

how did you get that, from this:

Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.
 
how did you get that, from this:

Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.

It's not just about your post.
 
"It’s tucked inside the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi, which reveals a key source of the bad intelligence that made it into Ambassador Susan Rice’s famous talking points: the media incorrectly reported that before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 there were protests outside the U.S. facilities in Benghazi when there weren’t. And the CIA believed those reports, resulting in talking points that were delivered to Ambassador Susan Rice, who told the nation on several Sunday news programs Sept. 16 that the attacks in Benghazi were “a spontaneous reaction” to protests that had occurred on the same day in Cairo against an anti-Islamic video published in the U.S." — "A Benghazi Scandal That’s Already Been Revealed: The CIA Believed A Media Mistake." Time. May 8, 2014


interesting ... but a couple of things jumped off the screen.

"And the culprit is not a White House adviser or State Department bureaucrat. It’s the intelligence community’s reliance on the media."
and
"It’s tucked inside the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi, which reveals a key source of the bad intelligence that made it into Ambassador Susan Rice’s famous talking points: the media incorrectly reported that before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 there were protests outside the U.S. facilities in Benghazi when there weren’t.

And the CIA believed those reports, resulting in talking points that were delivered to Ambassador Susan Rice, ..."

We are expected to believe that despite the actual report from the CIA/Benghazi which is claimed to have ID'ed a flavor of AlQaeda as the culprits right off while the media (someone somewhere) blamed or kind of hinted at the video although the CIA itself never said so but the CIA believed the media.
The CIA has to be pretty bush league to have done that ... or pretty much in the tank.
I'm not denying that version but it sounds more likely that it was really the WH who believed the media story because it was most serendipitous.
 
It's not just about your post.

Well, here is my post:

Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.

Have anything relevant?
 
What are you talking about ?

The White House didn't initiate the cover up untill after four Americans were dead.

Right now it looks like Hillary Clinton was incompetent as Secretary of State and Barack Obama as CnC was in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, dereliction of duty.

No one covered up the fact that Americans died.

So again, take these two hypothetical situations:
1). Protesters take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.
2). Terrorists take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.

What's the difference? The problem isn't who did it; the problem is that security wasn't good enough in the first place.
 
Actually, it says a lot more about you. Why does it matter if the attackers were motivated by anger over a youtube video or anger over something else? Why would it be worse if it was a coordinated al Qaeda attack timed to "commemorate" 9/11? Does it make the security lapse any more egregious? Does it make anyone more dead?

Ah yes, the Hillary defense. What difference does it make? The difference between life and death, apparently.
I invite both you and Hillary to keep up with the defense-because its not really a defense at all.

Let me be the first to notify you-that defense is going to be toxic for the dems.
 
The difference is that the President and his cabinet lied to us for two weeks and planted a false story about the attacks on Benghazi were inspired by a youtube video.

Absolutely-and for political purposes. It also highlights a potential presidential candidates ineptitude.
 
And then the administration recognized its mistake and said it was an act of terror.

And that is why Romney got in trouble " trying to use Benghazi to score political points during the second presidential debate.


Please. If most people knew what happened in Benghazi during the debates he would have gutted Obama. But most didnt-the media was dragging its feet, and there was still much information being obscured by the whitehouse.

Frankly, if the numerous scandals we didnt find out about until AFTER the elections were known before, it would have been a very different election.
 
Back
Top Bottom