90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Understanding The Latest Round Of Benghazi Hearings

Benghazi, again. New hearings this week on the attacks and the aftermath. We look at the facts and factionalism.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., holds a hearing about last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 8, 2013. Left to right are witnesses Mark Thompson, the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, and Eric Nordstrom, the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

On May 8, 2013, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee holds a hearing about last year’s deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. Left to right are witnesses Mark Thompson, the State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, and Eric Nordstrom, the State Department’s former regional security officer in Libya. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Benghazi, back in the spotlight yesterday.  The September 11 attacks last year that left four dead, including a U.S. ambassador, at a burning American outpost in Libya.

The fire of fury and recrimination over the attacks and their aftermath were still going strong Wednesday at a House committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

A Republican chairman suggesting cover-up.  A ranking Democrat charging low politics.  An emotional American diplomat out of Libya describing high dismay at how the story was told.

Up next On Point:  looking again at Benghazi.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Ernesto Londoño, national reporter for The Washington Post, covering the Pentagon. (@londonoe)

Christopher Hill, dean of the Josef Korbel School of  International Studies at the University of Denver. He was a career diplomat who served as Ambassador to Iraq during the Obama administration and Ambassador to Poland, Macedonia and South Korea during the Bush administration. (@ambchrishill)

Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He has been writing a series for Commentary Magazine on the Benghazi investigations: “The 2012 Election Is Over; The Benghazi Scandal Is Not,” “The Benghazi Scandal And Media Bias” and “Hillary Clinton’s Postmodernism.” (@Peter_Wehner)

Tweets From During The Show

From Tom’s Reading List

The Washington Post: The Benghazi Hearing Live Blog – “Three State Department officials are set to testify in an investigation of what Republicans leading the investigation contend was a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people about what happened that day.”

TIME: Terror, Security, And Hillary 2016: Making Sense Of The Benghazi Hearings – “To Republicans, the deadly September 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was a huge, conscience-shocking security scandal, one that Democrats are shamelessly trying to cover up. To Democrats, the attack was the sort of tragedy that inevitably comes from practicing diplomacy in a dangerous world, one that Republicans are shamelessly exploiting for political gain. Those two views came no closer to agreement during a Wednesday House hearing on the subject.”

Politico: Benghazi Hearing: State Officials Get Emotional – “In his first full public accounting, Gregory Hicks, a Foreign Service officer and ex-deputy chief of mission in Libya, recounted in vivid detail what happened the night of the attacks. Republicans insist that the Obama administration and the State Department didn’t do nearly enough to aid U.S. personnel under attack in September 2012.”

CBS News: Timeline: How Benghazi Attack, Probe Unfolded – “Since the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, questions have persisted over what happened that night, whether there was adequate security at the compound and the manner in which the Obama administration initially characterized the attack.”

Earlier Coverage

Listen to our show covering the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012:

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • OnPointComments

    What’s Behind The Latest Round Of Benghazi Hearings?  Finding out whether our government can be trusted to tell us the truth.
     
    My predictions for the liberal/progressive/democrat comments:  (1)  What about George Bush? [a diversion from the topic of Benghazi, and one of their 'go to' responses]  (2)  What difference does it make?  [another 'go to' response for those who excuse anything and everything done by the Obama administration].
     
    The testimony at the Benghazi hearing told us that military personnel were ready to board a plane to respond to the attack but instead were told to stand down, to the astonishment of military personnel who were ready to help.  I want to know who made that decision and why. The testimony told us that everyone on the ground in Libya knew that it was an Al Qaeda attack, including the Libyan president, yet someone in Washington concocted a story about a video and repeated that lie for more than a week.  I want to know who concocted the story and why.  I want to know why the people closest to the action weren’t interviewed by the ARB.  I want to know who gave the order to coerce career government employees to keep them silent.
     
    Without the answers to these questions, as far as we know all of the people who made such deadly decisions are still working for the government and could exercise the same deadly judgment again.  Congress has no better use for its time.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jmm23 John Myers

      Have any arrests even been made in the Benghazi attack? If not then this is all just speculation.
      Whatever happened, I do hope that we have better security at our embassies around the globe.

      • lessthantolerant

        democrats do not care how many diplomats they lose, like old style soviets, humans are expendable to further the cause.

        • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

          There they go again! Demonizing democrats as amoral, unethical, unfeeling, godless automatons.

          The hypocrisy of the holier than thou God’s Only Party would make me laugh if it weren’t the primary vehicle of the sacking of America by the financial elite. 

          • anamaria23

            You were very kind in your response to lessthan.   Actually, it is rather frightening in it’s ignorance,

          • lessthantolerant

            Odd response since God was never mentioned.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      When you wield an empire that works for corporate interests virtually regardless of human rights, you are going to make enemies and mistakes and sadly people will inevitably die needless tragic deaths.

      How many congressmen’s sons have served and made the ultimate sacrifice? The corruption use corruption to protect and promote ‘them & theirs’.

      Issa is just another pelf bromoting sastard.

    • hennorama

      OPC
      – you wrote:

      [The
      testimony at the Benghazi hearing told us that military personnel
      were ready to board a plane to respond to the attack but instead were
      told to stand down, to the astonishment of military personnel who
      were ready to help.]

      This
      answers the WHY:

      “From
      CNN’s Senior Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr:

      “The
      Pentagon is pushing back heavily against any claim that four U.S.
      special forces troops were banned from traveling to Benghazi in
      response to the attacks because of undue military bureaucracy.

      “The
      allegation comes from Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of the U.S.
      mission at the time, in an April 11 interview with Congress. Hicks
      was asked by the committee for the rationale of why he was told they
      couldn’t go.

      “I
      guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right
      level,” Hicks responded.

      “Pentagon
      spokesman George Little said the U.S. Africa Command operations
      center in fact told the men to stay in Tripoli, Libya, because the
      attacks had stopped before the Libyan C-130 they wanted to board had
      arrived and they were not needed in Benghazi. Instead they were
      needed to assist with arriving flights carrying the remains of the
      dead and other personnel in Tripoli and to assist in aiding U.S.
      personnel evacuated from Benghazi.

      “The
      men who wanted to go also were not equipped with combat gear and
      weapons and were not trained as a reaction force for a terrorist
      attack, Little said.”

      http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/08/the-latest-on-benghazi-hearing/comment-page-3/

      You
      also wrote:

      [The
      testimony told us that everyone on the ground in Libya knew that it
      was an Al Qaeda attack, including the Libyan president, yet someone
      in Washington concocted a story about a video and repeated that lie
      for more than a week.]

      I
      don’t think any testimony said “ it was an Al Qaeda attack”. The
      term used was the more broad “terrorist attack”. There was some
      reading of an email from Beth Jones, the acting Assistant Secretary
      for Near Eastern Affairs, as follows:

      ““I
      spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of
      Libyan leaders continuing to make strong statements. When he said
      his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried
      out the attacks I told him that the group that conducted the attacks,
      Ansar al sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

      As
      to your words that “someone in Washington concocted a story about a
      video and repeated that lie” – if you are referring to Amb. Rice’s
      Sunday talk show remarks, please provide a quote of her words that
      said something like “The attack in Benghazi was directly due to a
      video”, rather than what Amb. Rice ACTUALLY SAID, which was:

      CBS
      - “…what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what
      had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo …”

      ABC
      - “…this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated
      – response to what had transpired in Cairo.”

      FOX
      - “…what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous
      reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo …”

      NBC
      - “…what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous
      reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a
      copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo …”

      CNN
      - “ what we saw in that horrific incident where some mob was
      hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists …”

      For
      your convenience, here are the 5 transcripts:

      ABC:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933#.UYuoBaLUnDl

      CBS:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513819/face-the-nation-transcripts-september-16-2012-libyan-pres-magariaf-amb-rice-and-sen-mccain/

      CNN:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/16/sotu.01.html

      FOX:http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east#p//v/1843960658001

      NBC:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49051097/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/september-benjamin-netanyahu-susan-rice-keith-ellison-peter-king-bob-woodward-jeffrey-goldberg-andrea-mitchell/#.UYuowKLUnDl

      • OnPointComments

        Is it your contention that numerous administration representatives didn’t repeatedly say that there was a protest over a video that got out of hand, and that this story has not been conclusively proven to be a lie?

        • hennorama

          OPC- When discussing the protests that occurred at various US and other western facilities on or about Sept. 11, 2012, yes, various administration officals discussed “the video”. As to Benghazi in particular, it was characterized as a reaction to events that happened in Cairo.

          If you can find anyone saying “The attack in Benghazi was directly due to a video”, please do so.

          • OnPointComments

            When President Obama was asked about the attack in Benghazi:
             
            09/18/2011, 6 days after the attack:
             
            President Obama:  “Here’s what happened. … YOU HAD A VIDEO that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam — making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, EXTREMISTS AND TERRORISTS USED THIS [THE VIDEO] as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, INCLUDING THE ONE, THE CONSULATE IN LIBYA.  As offensive as this VIDEO was — and obviously, we denounced it, the United States government had nothing to do with it — that’s never an excuse for violence.”

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY for your reply. I understand and respect your views.

            I wrote “If you can find anyone saying ‘The attack in Benghazi was directly due to a video’, please do so.”

            You came close. No cigar is forthcoming, however.

            You inserted “[THE VIDEO]” into President Obama’s words. This is your interpretation of what Pres. Obama meant by the word “THIS”, which is not an unreasonable conclusion, but is not the only possible conclusion.

            Please allow some elaboration.

            m-w.com defines the word “this” as follows:

            “1 this (pronoun) ˈthis, thəs
            plural these

            “Definition of THIS

            “1a (1) : the person, thing, or idea that is present or near in place, time, or thought or that has just been mentioned (2) : what is stated in the following phrase, clause, or discourse

            “b : this time or place

            “2a : the one nearer or more immediately under observation or discussion

            “b : the one more recently referred to”

            See:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/this?show=0&t=1368146437

            Using definition 1a(1) “the person, thing, or idea that is present or near in place, time, or thought or that has just been mentioned …” we could also conclude Pres. Obama was referring to “…great offense in much of the Muslim world.”

            In addition, Pres. Obama used the term “as an excuse to attack” and not “as a REASON to attack”. Again, one might fairly interpret this as meaning “as ‘something offered as justification’ to attack” rather than the underlying reason or cause. For example, one might simply hate all Americans, and then try to justify this underlying hate by saying “Well – see, they ridiculed my supreme being. This makes attacking them justified.”

            As I said, your interpretation is not unreasonable, but it is not the only possible interpretation. Neither is it the President having said ‘The attack in Benghazi was directly due to a video’.

            Thank you again for your reply.

          • OnPointComments

            Allow me this flight of fancy.  Suppose we could find 10 people who had never heard of Benghazi, the attacks, or for that matter, President Obama, and we gave them the quote as it was originally said.  We ask these 10 uninformed people to read the quote, and then tell us what they believe was the cause of the violence referenced in the quote.  How many of them do you think would say “The Video.”  It’s all my speculation, but my guess is that if they are reasonably intelligent, all ten of them would say “The Video.”

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY for your response.

            As I said, your interpretation is not unreasonable. But it is not the only possible interpretation. Your “flight of fancy” is indeed speculation, as is much of the discussion of the Benghazi events.

  • JGC

    What’s behind the latest round of Benghazzz..zzzz…zzzzz…zz..

    (Months later):  …zzzz…zzzz…zzzz…

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Is that a knock on President Obama?  If it is, it is beyond insulting.

  • JGC

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-darrell-issa/65030/

    And that’s what is behind the latest round of Benghazi.

    • JGC

      This is the same pontificating and righteous Darrell Issa who was arrested twice in his youth: once for the alleged theft of a Maserati,  and the other charge for driving the wrong direction on a one-way street at the same time as carrying a concealed unregistered firearm.

      When Issa had matured somewhat past these “youthful indiscretions” into a fairly ruthless businessman, his offices and factory of “Steal Stopper” (pause here for ironic name choice) were destroyed in a fast-moving fire, losing all buildings and almost all inventory. Issa had increased the fire insurance policy by 462% three weeks before the fire, and had removed computer equipment holding accounting and customer information. An investigation found the fires had started in two places with the aid of an accelerant. The insurance company believed it to be arson and only paid 1/10th of the insured amount. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/jmm23 John Myers

         Issa may be an opportunist – just wondering why we didn’t have some Marines stationed there.

      • lessthantolerant

        Like Goebbel and Molotov, democratic supporters only have to spread the lie, not support it with facts.

        A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.Mark Twain

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Will someone please tell the Chinese that after these Islamic radicals are through with attacking the US, they will be attacking them. Then please pass the memo on to every other non Islamic country on Earth.

    Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

    Thank You,

    Your local Soothsayer

    • lessthantolerant

      China will respond much more brutally than we will and the Islamic threat will cease.
      We have forgotten the lessons of history because of liberalism.

      • J__o__h__n

        commie

        • lessthantolerant

          Odd.

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    What’s behind the hearings?  The pursuit of the truth in the face of such bold, brazen lying by Hillary Clinton and her proteges like Susan Rice!   Of course, when one considers that the Clintons are involved (e.g. “I did not have sex with that woman…Ms. Lewinsky” and “Vince Foster, whom Hillary was having an affair with was not murdered” and as David Geffin, liberal mogul, said, “the Clintons lie with such ease”), it’s easy to understand the extent of the lying and coverup to further their political ends.  Anyone who watched Hannity last night (Fox News being the only objective news source that is boldly pursuing this story rather than cow towing to the liberal administration) saw that the career State Dept officials who were closest to the situation knew that it was a pre-meditated act of terrorism rather than the reaction of a mob to a YouTube video.  But of course, they weren’t consulted because hiding the truth in order to get Obama reelected and line Hillary up for 2016 was the only matter that the Democrats was concerned about.  When Watergate was the subject, it was pursued doggedly, which is fine as the truth must prevail.  Similarly, we need to pursue this story until we cut through the pack of lies and learn the truth of this brazen coverup.

    • Ray in VT

      “Fox News being the only objective news source that is boldly pursuing this story”.  That’s a good one.  So when Bret Baier says that forces were held back that would have made it to Benghazi in time for the second attack, and statements by Gregory Hicks and Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz say that they would not have, then that is objective pursuit of the story?

      It was also pretty interesting how Fox News gave much more air time during it’s coverage yesterday to questions from Republican members, yet cut away from or talked over questions from Democratic members.  Very fair and balanced.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        The Democrats were simply hyperventilating and trying to spin the commentary away from the facts of the case and spin a yarn that the Republicans were just politicizing the incident.  Fox News decided to cover the facts of the story rather than give the Democrats a platform to further lie to the American people.

        • Ray in VT

          Good to know that Fox has decided what it’s viewers need to hear.

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            Actually, the liberal news media goes to much greater lengths to exclude stories that do not support their left wing point of view, such as the bludgeoning that takes place during a partial birth abortion, etc. etc. etc.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “Partial birth abortion”?

            Hahaha.

          • Ray in VT

            Or like how anti-abortion fanatics have carried out more bombing in America than domestic Muslim extremists, like how right-wing militia plots get almost no coverage or how some conservative politicians promote jailing women who get abortions or advocate the hanging of abortion providers.  That darned liberal media.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        Anyone who watched the testimony of the three state department officials clearly saw how upset they were over the turn of events, the fact that they were not consulted and that a story was being spun to cover the administration, and should want to get to the bottom of this incident.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    How many congressmen’s sons have served and made the ultimate sacrifice? The corruption use corruption to protect and promote ‘them & theirs’.

    Did we get a dispassionate, professional analysis? Did we hear the pros and cons? Did we get a detailed breakdown of all the risks and practical limitations of the resources available, intel and other concerns in the rapidly evolving situation?

    One thing we get plenty of is outrage, indignation and inciting rhetoric. What we rarely get is the reservation to pass judgement before all the facts are in.

    Issa is just another pelf bromoting sastard.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, tells Benghazi witnesses that “death is a part of life.”
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/08/dem_congressman_at_benghazi_hearing_death_is_a_part_of_life.html

      • jimino

        Your obvious (to any literate, thinking being) misuse of his comment which, by the way, is true, makes clear from the start you have no interest in the truth and puts you squarely in the right-wing camp for which all communication is propaganda to advance their message.

        You must be so proud!

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          It is common knowledge that most hateful personal attacks posted on the internet are made by those loosing political arguments to undeniable truths.

          • jimino

            Hey, I’m giving you your due props.  You should proudly embrace your role as a propagandist. 

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            My correct title is Chief Evangelist of the Worcester Tea Party.  

          • jefe68

            That sums it up. You’re only interested in a narrative that supports your anti-Obama mindset. The evidence of this in the constant posting of misinformation to support this narrative.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I thought that you were a poster without prejudices.  

          • Gregg Smith

            I’ve seen that allegation before. Why would anyone oppose Obama just because? I can’t relate. Do you have experience opposing all things Republican? Maybe that’s where it comes from but most people don’t think that way.

          • sickofthechit

             Why?  Because their name is Mitch McConnell.
            Have you not been keeping up with facts these last five years?

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    There was tragic incompetence, plainly, in the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks, and even possibly some political calculation. It is a record that may well come to haunt Hillary Clinton, the first Secretary of State to lose an ambassador in the field in more than three decades, if she runs for president in 2016.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/benghazi-incompetence-but-no-cover-up-20130508

    • jimino

      Wow!  You mean your crack investigators have uncovered incompetence and potential political motivation in connection with a deadly event in a far off dangerous place?  I am SHOCKED.  I tell you, SHOCKED. 
       

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Captain Renault is calling he says he wants royalties for your use of his catch phrase.

  • nj_v2

    Who voted to cut State Department funding that, in part, resulted in security reductions?

    Who is now hyperventilating over the result?

     

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      (The red herring squad slithers on to the field.)Who decided that Volt charging stations in Vienna were more important than security for the ambassador in Libya?
       http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/10/kelly-libya-security-cut-while-vienna-embassy-gain/?page=all

      • northeaster17

        I’ve heard it was fairly safe back at the embassy. But he was a long way from there.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          If our ambassador was the target, there would have been an attack on him where ever he went.  

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The State department CFO testified that funding had nothing to do with lack of security in Benghazi.

      Try again.

      Are you afraid of the truth?

    • OnPointComments

      10/10/2012 Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, testimony before House Oversight Committee regarding Benghazi attack:

      Question from Rep. Rohrabacher: “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb. You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

      Answer from Ms. Lamb: “No sir.”

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    This is an excellent account of the hearing from veteran Blogger Bryan Preston:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearings-live-blog/

    • jimino

      Why do you need to be told what to think and how to interpret public events?

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Do you believe that the producers of this show were telling you
        what to think when they posted a link to the WaPo live Blog?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Pajamas Media? More dross from some click-pimpers.

  • Ed75

    Why were they told to stand down? Who told them?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Unfortunately the Democrats were not on the panel to find out the truth.  The were there to obfuscate and try and protect Obama and Hillary. Rep. Elijah Cummings set the tone with his opening statement that was solely a partisan attack.  From the part of the hearings I heard it seemed like the GOP questioners bent over backwards to not be partisan and to stick to the facts.

    It was clear the witnesses were not partisan and simply wanted to get their story out for the sake of the country and their fallen comrades. 

    There remain many unanswered questions.  It is important for all Americans to come together with common outrage for all who attempt to block continue investigations.  We American people and the families of those who died deserve the answers.

    And where has the press been?  There were over 30 survivors to the attack and yet not one prime time interview with any of the survivors?  It has been over 8 months.  The lack of coverage for such a riveting human story has only one explanation.

    Rep. Elijah Cummings does deserve credit for acknowledging that there are many unanswered questions and at the end of the hearings called for additional hearings.

    • SuziVt

      Of course the democrats are always trying to cover up and are never interested in finding out the truth, are they? On the other hand, the republicans, encouraged by the tea party, are always trying to get to the truth and facts of everything at all times. 

      Some people spend their entire day, it would seem their entire lives, trying to find fault with those that don’t believe in their brand of politics. The republicans are never partisan. Please, it must be so satisfying to feel you’re in the right ALL the time and the other side is consistently wrong, deviant, corrupt, and liars to boot. The right was screaming foul immediately after the Benghazi attack. It’s amazing they could take time out of their quest for the “truth” about Barack Obama’s birthplace. Granted, the birthers are the more extreme and paranoid faction of the republican party. However, I don’t remember hearing many protests from the mainstream so-called conservatives. There are so many many examples of the right wing politicians being partisan and never being criticized by their supporters.

      Here we go again. The big, bad, democratic government being criticized, scrutinized, and condemned by the pristine, right wing, conservative republican – libertarians.    

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    The officials, including the second-in-command to Ambassador Stevens at the time of the attack, were critical of a wide range of administration decisions: from the level and type of security for the Benghazi mission, to rejecting a number of military options for addressing the attack.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0508/New-Benghazi-testimony-in-Congress-sharply-critical-of-Obama-administration

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    When asked about the upcoming hearing, White House spokesman Jay Carney largely deflected. Curiously, the Obama administration also won’t talk about the footage that they have from the compound – video that some people who have seen it argue could clear up questions about whether the incident was a premeditated terrorist attack or something less.

    They just really don’t want to talk about this.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/the-high-cost-to-the-white-house-of-stonewalling-on-benghazi-20130508

  • 1Brett1

    Great, the neocon contingent gets to spend the morning sounding like 9-11 Truthers talking about building #7.

    • Gregg Smith

      Silly.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Libelous.

        • 1Brett1

          hyperbolic use of the word “libelous.” 

    • northeaster17

      The neocons are trying to define Obama’s whole presidency by what happened at Benghazi.

  • Gregg Smith

    Is there anyone left who still believes this was about a silly video? Does anyone think Obama should be asked where he was after 5PM or does he get a pass?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Shooting hoops in the WH gym?

    • Ray in VT

      Who’s been pushing the disproven protest intelligence since video from the consulate was recovered sometime around September 30th?

      • Gregg Smith

        They knew on day one.

        • Ray in VT

          You once again show a pretty low standard for knowing something when you want to attack someone with whom you disagree.  Keep on denying those early intelligence reports.  I’m sure that they were all just made up by Obama.  That’s probably what he was doing after 5:00.  He read Pete the Goat, choked on a peanut for a while, and then set about making up intelligence reports.

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s a silly conclusion. I don’t like this.  

            All the early intelligence said it was a terrorist attack. NO ONE said it was the movie. Hillary was told directly it was a terrorist attack.

            The whereabouts of Obama matter. Do you think he should at least be asked about it? Why are you so flip about it? How can you defend this?

          • Ray in VT

            Keep on only seeing what you want to see.  If you repeat it often enough then it might become the truth, if only to you.

            I am not being flip, nor an I defending anything, unless one wants to consider my willingness to accept that in chaotic situations mistakes happen and that it takes a while for facts to come out defending something.

            What I am not in favor of is a political witch hunt which is being used, in my opinion, to try to undermine one’s opponents.  I think that there are far better ways to conduct an investigation without needlessly spreading falsehoods, which the right wing media has been doing regarding this issue for months.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         September 30th?

        They knew on day 1 that this was an attack by an Al Qaeda affiliate.  Even Obama acolytes  and the leftist media are now admitting this was political spin because it happened in the midst of an election.

        • Ray in VT

           “It was clear from the outset that a group of people gathered that
          evening. A key question early on was whether extremists took over a
          crowd or if the guys who showed up were all militants,” said an
          intelligence official involved in the Benghazi assessment. “It took
          time—until that next week—to sort through varied and sometimes
          conflicting accounts to understand the group’s overall composition.”

          http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/benghazi-the-real-libya-story-is-no-story-20121024

          No matter how much certainty you guys want to try to spackle onto a chaotic and changing situation half of a world away, it doesn’t change the fact that certainty did not exist immediately.

  • northeaster17

    It certainly appears that the U.S. was not prepared for what happened that night. I’d like to know what was happening in that compound. As far as I know that’s not a question Issa seems to want to ask. I do find the Republican attack dog mentality suspect.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Skepticism when dealing with politicians is usually warranted.  However, there was plenty of testimony about events in the compound yesterday.  Also, Issa appeared very restrained (although I didn’t watch the entire hearings) — as if he was overly sensitive to any sort of partisan criticism.

      • Ray in VT

        One should always be skeptical of people who may have an agenda, and that definitely includes politicians.

        I don’t think that Issa did himself any PR favors, given that Democrats on the Committee said that they either didn’t get to talk to or didn’t get prepared statements from the witnesses beforehand.  In general I don’t much care for Issa’s demeanor, and I didn’t watch or listen to the hearing, but he hasn’t seemed like someone who has made outrageous allegations in some of these matters.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Darrell “We’ll Have Hanging Parties Hearings Every Day!” Issa?

          Nuf ced. He’s a hack.

    • William

       Attack dog? After all the lies from the administration and then the attitude “it happened a long time ago”, “what does it matter”, “we have moved on”, “death is part of life”…

      • northeaster17

        When they start comparing Benghazi with Watergate and Iran Contra I see questionable motives

        • William

           Keep after these “smartest people in the room”. Show the American people and the world how corrupt and inept they are.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Keep JAQing it, William.

      • StilllHere

        Democrats are afraid of the truth.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    Judicial Watch sued the State Department seeking “all videos and photographs” depicting the Benghazi, Libya Consulate between September 10 and September 13, 2012, the period leading up to, during, and immediately following the deadly attack.Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its December 19, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:“Any and all videos and photographs depicting U.S. Consulate facilities in Benghazi, Libya (including the Special Mission Compound and the Annex) between September 10, 2012, and September 13, 2012, that were provided to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for Benghazi and/or to any individual member of the ARB.”

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/jw-files-three-new-lawsuits-against-obama-administration-for-concealing-benghazi/

  • Jasoturner

    Well, the important thing is that we know the oversight committee is only interested in an honest exploration of what happened so that we can review and improve our security practices for the future.  Always good to see Americans pull together in the national interest after a tragic event like Benghazi.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Must be Thumbs Down Thursday.
    I repeat my sentiment from yesterday:
    Off Point.

  • William

    You have to admit, the MSM ignored this story but were all over Abu Ghraib story.

    • Ray in VT

      What have they ignored?  A lot of the ground here has been pretty well covered, and I don’t think that a whole lot of new significant information came out yesterday, despite all of the hype.

      • William

         We know more about Abu Ghraib prison incident than this failure in leadership by government officials.

  • Gregg Smith

    Here’s a few quotes from the rabid and totally duped defenders from the Sept. 13 show. The funny thing is they now show no shame for being totally duped and they have no problem with the super duper. 

    “One vital aspect of freedom of speech is that we suffer fools.  Not necessarily gladly, but we do suffer them.”"Examples abound, including the genius who made this controversial “movie.”

    “Why aren’t the filmmakers arrested for incitement to riot?” 

    “That people would murder each other because of a video about their prophet epitomizes everything that is ignorant and base in mankind.”

    “It isn’t presently clear if this was a planned attack and if it was who was really behind it.”

    “The release of the film onto the internet was purposeful and meant to drag the US into Israel’s fight against its enemies and to alter the presidential election by creating a window for the neo-cons to criticize Obama’s handling of the Middle East.”

    “The maker released a statement that said he made the movie knowing (daresay “hoping”) that it would bring violent action.  He said that while he’s sorry people died he basically added, “Oh, well,” to the end of his statement, effectively washing his hands of responsibility.”

    • Ray in VT

      I wonder what sorts of comments one could dredge up from some of our rabid administration haters here regarding some of the questionable positions that they have pushed that don’t even come close to passing the smell test.  “Obama’s revenge” anyone?  “Bush never lied” anyone?

      • Gregg Smith

        Yes, Bush was the devil so Obama can lie all he wants. Nice logic.

        • northeaster17

          Maybe it’s just a wiff of hypocracy surrounding much of this outrage.

        • Ray in VT

          I get it dude, I get it.  Bad intelligence spoken by a Democrat is a horrible, terrible lie, but when a Republican does it, as well as pushing stuff that the intelligence community does not believe, and which ends up getting us into a war, then that’s okay.  The ends justifies the means when an R is after your name.

          • Gregg Smith

            It has nothing to do with party. You are drawing a caricature of yourself. It’s all okay because of the “D”. That’s not the way I roll.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, right.  Why is bad intel okay for Bush to repeat, but not for Obama.  Tell me, how many lies did Bush tell in the run up to Iraq?  Zero, right?  That has been your position in the past, despite evidence to the contrary.

          • Gregg Smith

            Because it wasn’t bad intel it was made up intel. The intel, all of it, said terrorist attack.

          • Ray in VT

            Like I said before, just keep telling yourself that.  A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth to some simpletons.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          The past doesn’t matter, unless it’s the past during which someone I don’t like was “in power”.

          Nice logic

      • jefe68

        Why are you even waisting your time with this guy?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          If I may, Jefe:

          I see your point, but it must always be stated that this is Public Radio.

          Unlike any other place in mediadom:

          Public radio has a self-flagellating need to try to include the discredited viewpoints and anti-facts of people who don’t want actual journalism, but simply exist as part of some nebulous thing call “balance”.

          Public radio has a naive ignorance of its political enemies, and keeps thinking if it apologizes one more time for some imagined transgression, the beatings will stop.

          Public radio has a goal to “appeal” beyond its political base of moderates (should they exist) towards the right, and somehow not disembowel their journalistic output.

          Too much unanswered crap from Greggg and someone at WBUR says “we have to include this in our worldview”.

        • Ray in VT

          Just stubborn, I guess.

    • StilllHere

      Classic, they’re not going to like being reminded of their own words.  They swallowed Obama’s lies and are now fully committed.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    And filmmaker Nakoula is still in jail.

    • keltcrusader

      Again, we discussed this the other day – he is in jail for violating his probation.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        (Hat Tip to Glenn Reynolds)

        ” …Some Obama-defenders will note that Nakoula was jailed for probation violations, of which he may have even been guilty. But, as I note in my Due Process When Everything Is A Crime piece … prosecutors can always find a reason to put someone away if they really want to. The question is, why, exactly, were they so eager to put Nakoula away?
        The fast-tracking of Nakoula’s jailing was highly irregular. Among other things, I’d like to see the Congressional investigators get Nakoula’s prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale — and perhaps his boss, U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. — under oath about communications from the White House or the Justice Department regarding this case.Because what it’s looking like is that Nakoula was targeted and jailed so as to provide a scapegoat/villain in a politically motivated cover story that the White House knew was false. If that’s the case, it’s extremely serious indeed, and in some ways more significant than whatever lapses and screwups took place in Benghazi. I’d also be interested in hearing from Nakoula’s attorney, Steven Seiden, about any threats made by the government to secure a plea deal.If there’s an impeachable offense anywhere in the Benghazi affair — and at this point, I’m not saying there is — it’s more likely in what happened with Nakoula than in the problems abroad, which by all appearances are simple incompetence, rather than something culpable. Railroading someone in to jail to support a political story, on the other hand, is an abuse of power and a breach of trust.

        • keltcrusader

          well, that’s just a bunch of crap – is that all you peddle?

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Thank for sharing your feelings.

          • StilllHere

            That’s all he’s got when he can’t argue with the facts.

      • Ray in VT

        No, no.  Hilary put him in jail to cover it all up.  Don’t you know?

  • William

     But the administration wants to move on. That is what Clinton, Kerry, and the WH spokesman have said. How can we learn from our mistakes if this Muslim terrorist attack is just cast aside like last year’s Christmas presents.

    • northeaster17

      It’s one thing to learn from and fix mistakes. It’s another to form a circular firing squad and call it an investigation.

      • William

         There is a tendency for government officials to just “move on” when they screw up. But let some poor guy make an error on his income taxes, wham!…the same government will run him through the ringer. Keep up the pressure and show the American people how corrupt and inept our government officials are.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    CBS suits spike reporter’s stories on Benghazi.

    Also, notice the partisan tone on tweets by an AP reporter and the WaPO.  Journalism is dead.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/08/report-cbs-news-bosses-irked-by-correspondents-thorough-benghazi-reporting-n1591242

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Townhall?

      Hahahahahahaha.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Benghazi whistleblower: ‘I’ve been demoted’ for challenging Susan Rice’s claims’

    After a 22 year career with consistent positive performance reviews Mr Hicks is penalized for questioning public statements of the regime.  Yet, Mr. Hicks did this internally and within the system.

    Also, it came out yesterday that Mr. Hicks was ordered to not speak to a congressman with oversight authority or let other speak to him without Hillary’s chief lawyer present by Hillary’s chief of staff.  This is an unprecedented move and borders on impeding an investigation.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/benghazi-whistleblower-ive-been-demoted-for-challenging-susan-rices-claims/article/2529201

     

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Washington Examiner?

      It’s like a “pig party” in here, each of the righties seeming to outdo each other for worst, least reputable media source.

      Too bad there can only be one winner.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Hour 1: Witch Hunt, next topic.
    Hour 2: Pitch Stunt, next topic.
     

    • Gregg Smith

      Obama has you right where he wants you.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        It saddens me to see intelligent and moral people cast all that away to support a politician, especially one that has shown time and again that they are not worthy of such loyalty and devotion. 

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I am supporting no one, just calling a horse a horse. Have fun with your 600 comment parade that leads nowhere.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Thank you for you kind wishes. And best of luck to you.

          • rogger2

            I’m with you.
             
            I’m not an Obama supporter but this Benghazi stuff is the definition of a witch hunt.  

          • StilllHere

            So we’ve heard the last from you? Doubtful.

      • SuziVt

        The paranoid tea party has you right where they want you! 

  • donniethebrasco

    This will cost Hilary the White House.

    • northeaster17

      You can’t be serious…Oh Wait, your always serious

    • Fiscally_Responsible

      If it does cost Hillary the White House, no one will be more disappointed than Bill.  He was hoping that he could have an office and get one particular intern back on his staff for some close personal contact.

      • StilllHere

        He’d take up cigars again.

  • Gregg Smith
  • brettearle

    No way NEAR as much of a transgression, as Iran-Contra–and President Reagan never even came close to impeachment.

    What’s more, the American people were reminded, in the 2012
    Presidential debates (millions were watching), that the President came out, right away, and alluded to the tragic notion that Benghazi might have been an act of Terrorism.

    Everyone knows–as in the case of the Boston Atrocity–that early on, in a major story, some details and reports are often either false or are half-truths.  Sizing up an environment that requires security–across the Globe, for US interests–before a violent event might occur, can be daunting (as in Boston).

    Who can reliably evaluate instantaneous Intelligence, necessarily, in Libya–if, for years, for example, British, German, French, and US intelligence, for Iraq, was bogus?  

    It is Senator Lindsay Graham–who ought to be censured in the Well of the Senate. 

    If the President so much as sneezes without using a handkerchief, Senator Graham holds a press conference, claiming that Obama is starting a viral pandemic.

    He is a propagandistic Disgrace.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       We still don’t know if the Benghazi mission was set up to run guns to Syria.  No American’s died in Iran-Contra so you correct in one sense — there is no comparison.

      • Ray in VT

        “No Americans died in Iran-Contra”.  That is true, although we supplied weapons to people who did kill people.  Iran-Contra was a far worse offense against American law and the public trust than unclear intelligence which killed no one, and, as far as I know, broke no laws.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           We still don’t know if the CIA mission in Libya was used to funnel guns to Syria.

          • Ray in VT

            I’ve seen you mention that a couple of times today.  What is your source for the suggestion that it was, and even if it was, then what relevance does it have to the attacks, other than that the CIA was conducting some shady covert operation?

    • donniethebrasco

       The Republicans were bad, so Obama and Hilary can abandon an American Embassy and cover it up?

      How does the Kool-Aid taste?

      • northeaster17

        The U.S. Embassy was not attacked. Get a grip

        • donniethebrasco

          Are you being sarcastic?

          Was the US Ambassador not killed too?

          • northeaster17

            He was not at the Embassy

      • Ray in VT

        My Kool Aid can’t be nearly as good as whatever some of you guys are smoking?

        So what exactly was covered up?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Check out how the Susan Rice talking points were edited:

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=2

          When the person on the ground in Libya questioned the talking points he was demoted.

          So you believe that just because Obama spent the week before 9/11 at the Dem convention declaring Al Qaeda was dead and this event belied that narrative that every action  by the regime to change the narrative was just a coincidence?

          If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

        • S_Mangion

           Ray, I seem to recall some allegations about the CIA running a detention/prison.  Never much traction in the media – either as a true story or a false one.  The lack of closure makes me wonder.  In any event, I believe there is a CIA connection with Benghazi.  (Or maybe not – do any of us really know?)

          • Ray in VT

            There was some sort of CIA post there, but I don’t think that it has been said, at least to the public, what it was that they were up to, which would seem to be pretty standard for a CIA station.

          • brettearle

            Can’t see the exact relevance, right?

            So what if there’s a connection….

            What does it prove or disprove?

            And by the way…if the American people knew how many CIA mini-detention centers–makeshift and otherwise–have likely been put together over the years, they might want to check to see if the original Framer documents are still in Washington.

            And I’ll bet Rendition goes on, much more than we think….with Obama being shielded from knowing….for either plausible deniability reasons or otherwise.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Can I have some of whatever you’re on?

      • northeaster17

        It was not an Embassy

      • brettearle

        NOT AS GOOD AS THE KOOL AID TASTED AFTER 250-ODD US SOLDIERS WERE SLAUGHTERED IN LEBANON, IN THE EARLY 80′S–WHO WERE THERE ON PRESIDENT REAGAN’S ORDERS.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Speaking of viral pandemic, have you heard about the new flu strain? Scary. Thank goodness we have this tripe to keep us distracted…

      • brettearle

         Yes, I have heard of the new strain.

        And, yes, it is scary.

        Scarier than Graham–but Graham is STILL scary.

  • donniethebrasco

    The Democrats embarrass themselves every time they open their mouths about Benghazi.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Reporting on how the Susan Rice talking points were changed to obscure the truth.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=2

    Page 2 has the before and after.  It is incredible what they decided to keep in and cut out.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      All the loser sources are here today.

      Wait. Where’s the Breitbart? I’ll keep looking.

  • Prairie_W

    I’m surprised this topic is still current.  Hasn’t it been established that Congress was stingy with the funds needed to provide ample protection?  And wasn’t Chris Stephens, like many diplomats, well aware of the risks and eager to move around without constant protection?

    Aren’t we — all  of us, both sides — fully aware that this is about spiking Clinton’s 2016 chances, not about security?  If Congress were serious about security they would have provided the funds and would be working now, not goofing around in committee meetings!

    I don’t think even Republican voters are falling for this stuff, are they?

    • donniethebrasco

        I agree with Al Sharpton.

      Hilary Clinton covered up Benghazi and lied.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      (Please see earlier comments)

      Who decided that Volt charging stations in Vienna were more important than security for the ambassador in Libya?
       
      http://www.washingtontimes.com

      • J__o__h__n

        Even Fox is better than the Rev. Moon’s paper.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          What paper do you read?

          • J__o__h__n

            “all of them”

            on line: NY Times, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Washington Post, NPR, BBC, Drudge, Slate, Salon, New Yorker, Atlantic, Time

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Which wire services do you trust?

            (This isn’t really a test for you, per se.)

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        The Moonie Times?

        By your links are you known.

      • StilllHere

        They’ll castigate you for the source, not the content which they’ll ignore.

    • OnPointComments

      10/10/2012 Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, testimony before House Oversight Committee regarding Benghazi attack:

      Question from Rep. Rohrabacher: “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb. You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

      Answer from Ms. Lamb: “No sir.”

      • Prairie_W

        When Dana Rohrabacher asks a question like that, OPC, he knows what the answer will be, much like a courtroom lawyer.  But (as we’ve all learned over the years), it’s not the whole truth Rohrabacher wants.  Just confirmation of a narrow political line.

        I suspect the facts of Benghazi will  show (once again!) that for years there has been a pattern of Republican efforts to cripple State and then blame the department for incompetence.  The right prefers military solutions. They like the money. The State Department is there to do a job the defense industry doesn’t want:  avoid war.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          They haven’t passed a budget in 4 years so the argument is BS.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       You are a victim of the cover up.  This is why all American’s need to support a full and open investigation — even if it hurts Obama and Hillary politically.  Let the chips fall where they may.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Funny those chips never fell when consulates were attacked under Shrub.

        The manufactured butthurt is getting in the way of any real investigation.

        • sickofthechit

           54 embasy attacks when Bush was in office with 13 people dead.  Three (3) committee hearings in total! (Daily Show may 8 2013) charles a. bowsher

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            It’s a sad day for our press corpse when Stewart and Colbert are the only ones out there not burying salient facts like this.

            That makes quite a run of sad years for our press corps.

  • donniethebrasco

    I agree with Al Sharpton.

    Hilary Clinton covered up Benghazi and lied about it.

    • StilllHere

      That’s got to be a first.  Wondering who Sharpton likes for ’16.

  • northeaster17

    What was that consolute location used for?

    • donniethebrasco

       Why do you ask?  Does it mean that we should allow Americans to be killed and cover up the reason they were killed?

      • northeaster17

        If that is what your gaining from this question your a dupe

  • donniethebrasco
    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Mediaite?

      We have a new leader in the clubhouse for worst link of the day.

  • J__o__h__n

    Why is On Point ignoring Benghazi and instead covering . . . oops, never mind.  Got to update my talking points. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Give em a break.  It only took them 8 months to get to it.

    • donniethebrasco

      Do you just yell lies at people hoping they won’t ask difficult questions?

      This will be a Pro-Obama Pro-Hilary debrief.

      Don’t believe what your lying eyes tell you. Just believe whatever Obama tells you. He would never lie about something like this.

  • OnPointComments

    “The Scandal In Libya: Testimony by the Benghazi whistle-blowers presents clear evidence of shameful political manipulation of the truth seven weeks before an election and a willingness to let four Americans die to maintain a campaign narrative.”
     
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050813-655341-benghazi-whistle-blowers-expose-administration-coverup.htm?p=full 
     
    Personally, I believe the IBD is correct and it is exactly what happened.  The presidential campaign is in full swing.  One of the tenets of the campaign is that the Obama diplomacy is working in the Middle East, so the State Department adopts a strategy to give the appearance of normalcy at the Libyan embassy and consulate as proof that the foreign policy is working.  Normalcy includes denying requests for additional security.  The Obama campaign is trumpeting “Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive” and “Al Qaeda is on the run.”  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper touts the party line that the Arab Spring and US policy has brought moderate Muslims to power, even calling the Muslim Brotherhood a “secular” organization.  But then the Benghazi consulate is attacked, proving that the situation is not normal in Libya, Al Qaeda is not on the run, and radical Islam is strong.  All of this causes the administration to go into full CYA mode which includes limiting the number people who know what is happening by denying military support, and concocting a story that there was a protest over a video.  The cover-up continued with the coercion of government employees to hide the truth.
     
    “In sum, the administration clearly knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack, refused to send help and then conspired to lie about it to the American people.”

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      More IBD Editorial shite.

      Can’t you come up with anything original? All I’m getting is poutrage.

      • donniethebrasco

         How about Al Sharpton?

        He says that it was a cover up.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You’re funny when you’re angry.

          That makes you funny all the time, in a “we’re laughing at you, not with you” manner.

        • Ray in VT

          When did he say that?  He did say that these hearings are the new vast right wing conspiracy.

    • hennorama

      In sum, this is IBD’s opinion.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Ms. Spider

    Why is it that the video (or, rather, the administration communication strategy that initially leaned on the video) animates Republicans above almost everything else?

    Obsessing on the flawed PR won’t do much to improve the safety of our overseas missions. I can only assume that when you’re left with the prospect of quibbling over tactical manuevers, the PR critique looks like an easier target. Unfortunately, for everybody watching, it’s a crude play to the cheap seats.

  • donniethebrasco

    If you make Al Qaeda angry by accusing them of terrorist attacks, they will commit more terrorist attacks.

    If Al Qaeda does commit a terrorist attack, do not tell anyone that they committed a terrorist attack.

    That way they might stop.

    Treat them like a crazy drunk uncle.

    • Ray in VT

      I thought that we provoked these attacks by talking too much about killing the head honcho?

      • 1Brett1

        Lowest common denominator conservatives on this forum forget which narrative they are pushing by attempting to make as much hay out of this as they want, I guess…not unlike “a crazy drunk uncle.”

        • Ray in VT

          I love drunk uncles, especially the one on SNL.

  • toc1234

    this should be a great show… we’ll see how far Tom can go to whitewash this…

    • donniethebrasco

       ”Right wing” Al Sharpton says that it was a cover up.

    • StilllHere

      Tom has the flexibility of a Chinese circus performer, I’m sure we’ll see it today.

  • MrNutso

    Wow, 140 comments already.  Condensed version of Benghazi:

    When our guy is President and we’re in power in Congress, nothing to see.  When you’re guy is President and we’re in Congress, fire up the impeachment proceedings.

    This applies to both political parties.

    • adks12020

      That’s a spot on assessment; that dynamic also makes it very difficult to trust either side.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Ms. Spider

    If the Tripoli consulate, itself, was worried about their facility, why, on earth, would they send their last remaining special forces personnel to Benghazi?

    In my opinion, USAFRICOM made the proper decision, to *not* let Tripoli be exposed. Discretion, as they say, is the better part of valor.

    • donniethebrasco

       So, tell the American people for 6 weeks that it was a demonstration, not a terrorist attack.

      Elections before Truth

      Is that the motto of the Choom Gang?

      • Ray in VT

        Do you have some quotes from six weeks after the fact to support your allegation?

      • StilllHere

        Good question!

  • skeptic150

    As I’ve posted previously, a root cause analysis, which includes avoiding “blame” and looks for underlying causes and ways to fix them, should be acceptable to everyone, no? Why all the politicizing and “blame” talk? Who cares what people said, let’s look at potential root causes and fix them.

    • MrNutso

      Well on possibility is that Republicans want to prove that the President lied during the election campaign in order to get re-elected.

      • skeptic150

        I’ve looked at all the transcripts and timelines. To me, it looks like they are making something out of nothing. 
        I was in the military and I know what gets said publicly is sometimes not even close to what really happened, for a variety of reasons (incomplete/inaccurate intell, security, etc.).  Personally, I think these Repubs are getting their panties in a wad for no reason.  And I think they will only continue to damage their already weakening “reputation” with Americans (at least intelligent Americans).

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        They don’t have to “prove” anything, as you know. They just have to keep JAQing it. It’s their specialty.

    • donniethebrasco

       It is the cover up, not the defense of Benghazi.

      It didn’t fit Obama’s narrative to have an Al Qaeda attack during his election, so he created a campaign of disinformation.

      • skeptic150

        What cover up? Go back and look at all the transcipts and timelines.  From what I’ve read and seen, the only stretch is Rice’s comments and she was continually pressed to say something – her initial response was nothing, but she was pressed to say something.  Anyone with any experience in these matters knew it was way too soon for anyone to make any intelligent comments about the incident.  And everyone did have that caveat with their comments. 
        These Repubs in the news, including Issa, are acting like sharks in a frenzy, and voices of reason are not coming to the forefront. But I guess that sells and keeps our media in business.  The problem is, as written in Idiot America, if it sells, if “famous” people say it (Fox news, etc.), and if it is repeated long enough, Idiot America will fall for it.

    • hennorama

      skeptic150 – you are caught in the logic vs. politics conundrum.  They seldom coexist.

  • Bennie BER

    Why an embassy in Benghazi? Is Tripoli not the capital of Libya? Was Benghazi a CIA station? We have heard about the ambassador, but who were the other casualties? If you are going to dig, expose everything….

    • hennorama

      The Benghazi facility was a consulate, not an embassy.  In general, consulates are much smaller and less heavily guarded than embassies.

  • William

    It is so painful to listen to this lady trying to sell flowers. 

    • J__o__h__n

      It is so bad that I listen to other NPR stations on line, their local competitor for Morning Edition, and then turn it off or listen to podcasts for the rest of the day. 

      I don’t mind a quick announcement to raise money or hawk flowers but they blather on and on about how great the programs they are interrupting are and why you like NPR and the other tired things they repeat every other month. 

      I don’t see why they don’t offer a code for station members to be able to listen on line without the begging. 

  • sickofthechit

    Could we have a little reason here please?  Why does the State Dept. have all this “sensitive” info?  Is it perhaps because we are doing a little more than “State Department” business at these facilities?  Perhaps they are fronts for the CIA or other intelligence operations.  Let’s not ever forget the Republicans blocking and I think actually reducing the funding for Embasy security prior to this event!  That is one of the reasons Republicans are pounding this issue so strongly.  They want us to look one way but not the other.

    Assume this was a terrorist attack.  Then isn’t it possible that we wanted to keep the terrorist thinking that we did not realize it, thus giving us a better chance of tracking them down?  Isn’t that the most likely reason Susan Rice was only given so much to say that Sunday?
    Charles A. Bowsher

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      No it is not possible.  Obama had an election to win.

    • hennorama

      sickofthechit – The fact that this was a US consulate with a CIA base/safe house nearby means that we will likely NEVER know exactly what happened.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Tom, Darryl Issa said, after election day 2010, “I’ll hold hearings all day, every day” going after the Obama administration.

    He didn’t actually have a subject at the time.

    This is perilously close to “Sentence first, verdict afterwards” Lewis Carroll territory. Did nobody on WBUR know this?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       You clearly didn’t listen to the hearing.  Issa played it straight.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Issa never plays it straight. He’s the self-proclaimed monkey-wrench in the works.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Again, you clearly didn’t watch the hearings.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Pfft.

          • StilllHere

            He’s too busy staring at his navel all day.

    • skeptic150

      Again, I’ve looked at all the transcripts and timelines. To me, it looks like they are making something out of nothing.

    • hennorama

      Conclusions in search of evidence, and nothing more.

  • donniethebrasco

    Cover up, pure and simple.

    Al Sharpton agrees with that.

    • hennorama

      Opinion, pure and simple.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Kudos the the WaPO reporter.  Sounded like straight reporting.

  • Casey Reyner

    If the incident in Libya is worth this much attention, the entire Bush administration should be brought up on war crimes charges for taking us to war in Iraq.

    • donniethebrasco

       Don’t look at our crimes, look at your crimes.  Is that what you are saying.

      Obama gets a pass?

      The truth doesn’t matter.

      You sound like NPR and MSNBC.

      • MrNutso

        I think the poster is saying look at both.

      • Casey Reyner

         Well, yes.  If you choose to ignore those crimes, why not these?  A lot more people died as a result of those lies.  Not to mention the 31 people killed at US embassies during the Bush years, where was this outrage then?

    • skeptic150

      Absolutely. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and possibly Bush, should probably be in jail.

      • StilllHere

        So glad you have no connection to the justice system.

        • skeptic150

          I said probably – and my comment is based on the information I’ve read (books, transcripts, news articles, etc.).
          At least one, and maybe all of them, misrepresented known, good intell that there were no WMD and then used incomplete/mis- information to justify the war - lives lost were based on incomplete/mis- information that was given to Bush (but it is unclear whether he was given all the info or was in the dark about all the info that there were no WMD). 
          This was far more significant, imo, with respect to a “cover up” than Benghazi.

    • StilllHere

      What are you so afraid of?

  • donniethebrasco

    Using the truth for political purposes.

    Obama lied, ambassadors died.

    • hennorama

      donniethebrasco – even IF your words were true, they are sequentially reversed.

      Nice try, though.

    • Ray in VT

      So what Obama lie(s) led to the deaths of our ambassadors, and which ambassadors were those?

    • StilllHere

      Obama is still lying.

  • jenniekh

    What about all the deaths during the Bush era in consulates and the like?

    • StilllHere

      What are you so afraid of?

  • sickofthechit

    54 embasy attacks when Bush was in office with 13 people dead.  Three (3) committee hearings in total! (Daily Show may 8 2013) charles a. bowsher

    • donniethebrasco

       How many did he cover up the purpose?

      How many did decide not to defend

      • StilllHere

        Would love tha answers to those questions!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       When you don’t have a cover up there is no need for hearings.  See how that works?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Smells like poutrage. There is no shortage of it on the right.

      • StilllHere

        Demorats are afraid of the truth!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       No American’s were killed under Bush.

      Funny, I did a quick good search and a number of left wing blogs showed up with this assertion and they all had different numbers of attacks and deaths.

      • jefe68

        June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
        Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

        February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaTruck bomb kills 17.

        February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, PakistanGunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

        July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, UzbekistanSuicide bomber kills two.

        December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi ArabiaMilitants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

        March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, PakistanSuicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

        September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, SyriaGunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

        January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, GreeceA rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

        July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, TurkeyArmed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

        March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, YemenMortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls’ school instead.

        September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, YemenMilitants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

        What I’m taking away from your comment here that it only counts if Americans die.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Media matters or daily kos?

          • StilllHere

            Exactly!

          • jefe68

            The king of trolls is back.

          • StilllHere

            Who are you kidding?  You’ve been here all the time, you’re useless 24/7.

          • jefe68

            These attacks happened. It’s in the public record. If you don’t like the facts because they ruin your narrative on this, well that’s to bad. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            At some point you’ll have to ask yourself “Is Jefe lying, actually making stuff up”?

            Actually, strike that. That’s what anyone else would do.

    • hennorama

      sickofthechit – This line of argument is a bit of false equivalency.

      Each distinct incident is important on its own, and comparisons of the sheer number of incidents and/or deaths during any particular administration is not terribly enlightening.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I disagree.

        The right-wing advocacy media shitstorm (for want of a better word) is not to be ignored. That’s how meaningless things wind their way from outright stupid, to
        Drudge, to Politico, to Diane Sawyer, to “something everybody knows”.

        And the low-information media who want to dogwhistle to their low-information voters about “security” and “secret Muslim” (which hasn’t gone away).

        That you and Chas Bowsher and I know better still doesn’t help. Being the only sane people in a stampede will still get us run over.

        • hennorama

          TF – fair enough, and well said.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You’re an honest broker. (From me, that’s high praise.)

            I guess I’m this way cos I’ve read CJR since college, so bothers me greatly that our Stewarts and Colberts are eating our Press Corps lunch on this (and many other subjects).

            Something about “marketplace of ideas” got lost along the way to my television and became Groupthink.

          • hennorama

            TF – TY for your very kind words.

            Ah yes, the good ol’ CJR … say no more.

    • StilllHere

      Daily Show on Comedy Central, gotcha.

  • toc1234

    but why did Rice go w that narrative?  that’s never been answred by WH..

    • StilllHere

      just following orders of her commanders …

  • jenniekh

    What about all the deaths during the Bush era at consulates?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      No Americans were killed under Bush.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Really? A little bird told me:

        June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
        Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

        February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaTruck bomb kills 17.

        February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, PakistanGunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

        July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, UzbekistanSuicide bomber kills two.

        December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi ArabiaMilitants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

        March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, PakistanSuicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

        September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, SyriaGunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

        January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, GreeceA rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

        July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, TurkeyArmed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

        March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, YemenMortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls’ school instead.

        September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, YemenMilitants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Media matter or daily kos?

          Again, no American’s killed.  There have also been at least 7 attacks under Obama as well.  I don’t under the point you are making.  Bush never covered up anything regarding these attacks.

          • jefe68

            So it only matters if Americans are killed?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Of course not.  But it does beg the question about security because this time they were able to penetrate the outer defenses.  I’m still not clear on why this list of attacks during Bush is relevant to the Benghazi cover up.  There is a similar list under Obama.

          • jefe68

            Amazing. It’s really amazing how you are so desperate for this tragic incident to play into your narrative about President Obama.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I’m not the one that is desperate.  I just want the facts without a cover up.

          • StilllHere

            He’s desperate to cover it up.  So desperate he wants to distract your attention to events in the past that have no connection.

          • SuziVt

            Bush’s administration worked tirelessly to cover their rears regarding their so-called undisputable reasons based on so-called facts for getting us into this destructive ongoing war. Cheney is still making the news circuits, defending their actions and still believes they were right to get us into this quagmire. How much time have you given to criticizing that pathetic bit of history? Bush’s administration doesn’t have to attempt a cover up. Their supporters are in denial and believe, unconditionally, in all the ideology and propped up threats that their ‘decider’ reported.

          • William

             Bill Clinton said Iraq needed a change in government so did he lie too?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Keep JAQing off, bub.

          • William

            Ask Bill.

          • Ray in VT

            So when was it that Bill Clinton invaded Iraq?

          • northeaster17

            That’s because Bush never mislead the country about anything. Right? Neocon hypocracy is an amazing thing to witness.
            It’s to bad the Dem’s didn’t take the same approch on attacks during Bush’s term as the as the Repub’s are now.  Back then that would have been treasonous

        • jefe68

          The right wingers on this forum are not interested in facts. They want the narrative to support their ideology.

          • donniethebrasco

             I don’t want Susan Rice to lie about the motivation for the attacks on the Benghazi consulate.

            The truth is that she did.  And she knew she was lying.

        • William

           So with so many attacks why did the administration come up with the video lie?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Keep JAQing off, William.

            Forget everything everyone was asking after 9/11 and fixate on this one picayune thing.

            And keep working “administration lie” into your crap.

          • William

            The guy that came up with the video lie should come forward.

        • notafeminista

          And not a source nor link in sight.  Telling.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Keep trolling, hack.

    • notafeminista

      Candidate Obama was supposed to be better than President Bush.

      “It happened under President Bush so therefore it’s okay under President Obama” kind of stinks..especially from the Left.

      • StilllHere

        New rules for this guy.  Media gives him a pass.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Keep JAQing it, Nota. And look up the meaning of “hamstrung” “poutrage” and “shitstorm” while you’re at it.

        • notafeminista

          Which source would you find credible.  You’ve made clear which ones you find to be unsatisfactory?

          • StilllHere

            Anything that agrees with her fixed world view.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            When righty trolls come back to realityworld, I’ll let you know. That includes media crit, satire, and unique news reportage.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Why do you keep JAQing it?

            You can blindly stumble around and when you ask a question that’s not some lame-ass repetition of a right-wing talking point, I’ll let you know.

          • notafeminista

            Meaning you don’t have one.  Pity.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I don’t need to be Pulitzer or Gutenberg to know that your idea of “media source” is for shite.

          • notafeminista

            I’m asking you to name a source you find credible.  When you do, you can be assured I will use it when asserting facts.

    • StilllHere

      Which Bush?  How about during the Washington administration?

    • donniethebrasco

       I thought it was all Nixon’s fault.

    • OnPointComments

      Tell us how what happened in the Bush era caused the attack in Benghazi, the failure to send support to the Americans, and the lying afterwards.

    • StilllHere

      “What difference does it make?”

  • Ellen Dibble

    I  think you could call a lot of militancy a kind of protest carried to extremes.  It is crime or war if it is designed to do one sort of thing; if it is designed to foment unrest and get attention, then it is a protest gone wrong.  I have photos from around the world that were circulated of vast throngs of Muslims protesting America’s disrespect for Islam.  Angry with the same sort of anger that seems to feel it is necessary to re-tread the non-Muslim world, especially America, and/or certain of its, shall we say, client states.  Ahem.  That is what I took from Ambassador Rice’s multiple repetitions on that Sunday morning, that the State Department was confounding violent protest with violent unrest or determination to cause disruption.  I don’t know exactly.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The irony is the video received far more publicity because of publicity given it by the Obama administration.  It would have died in obscurity without that publicity.

      The filmmaker is still in prison — on some other charge.

      • adks12020

        Died in obscurity? Really? What about the massive protests in reaction to it in 3 other countries that were all over the worldwide news?

        The video would’ve made news and stayed their either way.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The youtube site only had a few hits before the regime made it famous.

          • Ray in VT

            And how many saw it in the Middle East when Egyptian TV ran it a day or two before?

      • Ray in VT

        Possibly it would have died here, but seeing as how Egyptian TV aired it, it was probably going to have some legs in the Muslim world.  I believe that the filmmaker, a convicted felon, is in jail for violating the terms of his parole, as anyone interested in the facts should know, unless one believes that that is also a part of the cover up.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Well I have the benefit of hindsight and I’ll use it to my advantage.  Yes, it was out there in Egypt but the regime’s actions clearly amplified the promotion of the video.  However, the regimes action probably had little additional affect on the Muslim world — one way or the other.  It was all about domestic politics.

  • toc1234

    come on, Ambssr Hill, don’t embarrass yourself…

  • MrNutso

    RE Talking points:  Exhibit A is Colin Powell in front of the UN advocating for the invasion of Iraq.

  • TVPC58

    This was not simply an attack on the four individual Americans, as former Secretary of State Clinton has characterized the incident.  These people who were killed were not U.S. tourists or missionaries…they were representatives of the United States.  I always understood that attacking and killing U.S. (or any other country’s) diplomatic venues and personnel is an attack on the United States.  Minimizing this fact by the Obama administration is alarming.  

    • hennorama

      TVPC58 – Exactly who is “Minimizing this fact”?

      • notafeminista

        Everyone who says “How many time did this happen under President Bush”

        Everyone who attacks the source and not the information.  See below.

        Everyone who says Ambassador Stevens was eager to move around without security.

        Anyone who says questioning Ambassador Rice is racist.

        • hennorama

          notafeminista – TY for sharing your non-specific opinion replying to a request for exactness.

          Perhaps you failed to read the word “Exactly” in my post, as well as the reference to “the Obama administration” in TVPC58′s post.

          • notafeminista

            Perhaps you fail to understand the definition of the word “exactly” in your inquiry.  Thanks for your opinion.

    • StilllHere

      I thought it was a response to an internet video.

      • Ray in VT

        Most be you haven’t been paying attention to the facts that came to light once the video was retrieved from the consulate, at which point proof was possible.

        • StilllHere

          Sorry, I guess I’ve just been taking administration officials at their word, which granted, have been changing constantly.  My bad.

          • Ray in VT

            Which administration officials have lately been saying that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest?

  • JeroseB

    Hi-  Thanks for the program.  Peter asserted before the break that it was clear the demonstrations were not the reason for the attack.  This may be easy to say in hindsight but misses the fact that even on the OnPoint program on Sept. 13 – one of the guests – I believe Christopher Dickey – reported that witnesses and bystanders outside the burned outpost blamed anger over the video.  His on the ground reporting was one of many voices that shared reasons for the attack.  What does this reporter say know – does Tom Ashbrook remember this exchange?

    • OnPointComments

      There were no demonstrations in Benghazi.  There were no protests in Benghazi.  There was a premeditated attack by an Al Qaeda related affiliate.  All of the people closest to the attack knew this.  Someone conjured up this lie about a YouTube video.

      • Ray in VT

        How is it that someone on the ground in Tripoli know the exact nature of what was going on in Benghazi, some 400 miles away, that evening?  I may have missed it, and I will admit that, but has Mr. Hicks said upon what that statement is based?  Was he in communication with people in Benghazi at that time who did know of the precise events as they transpired, or is it more of a gut feeling that he had?

        • OnPointComments

          How is it that someone in Washington, DC, over 5,000 miles away from Benghazi, Libya, knew that it was a YouTube video that caused the attack on the consulate?

          • Ray in VT

            One initial indication were reports from on the ground, although many comments early on did express some varying degrees of doubt as to the exact nature of the attack.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Tom, can you have a little less monologuing by this mild-mannered guy (:45m).

    He’s moving the goalposts big-time.

  • joe1745ny

    cruising in benghazi a consideration? reports had the ambassador tortured and sodomized. 

  • Stackowax

    Issa said from the day he took over that committee that he intended to keep the Obama administration in non-stop investigative hearings.  Long before Benghazi.  And that is what he is doing.  It is entirely political.  And Wehner. Seriously?  Complaining that the Obama administration was talking about the video WEEKS after the event.  Members of the Bush Administration–including Bush–still have not stopped saying that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  A decade later.  In comparison the Obama administration moved with lightening speed to correct the record.

  • sickofthechit

    What or when we call something by a certain name is not important.

    The You tube video line was pushed because mature reasoning people understand that we are dealing with nearly countless numbers of easily incensed people who are on shorter and shorter fuses.  All it takes is one to do some real damage.  That video added nothing positive to our discourse or our world.

    It’s a form of risk management.

    • notafeminista

      “What or when we call something by a certain name is not important.”   

      Well, sometimes.

    • hennorama

      sickofthechit
      - I have no doubt that Frank Lutz or others have “focus-grouped”
      the terms “YouTube video” and “obscure YouTube video”
      and found that these terms made people more likely to dismiss them as
      silly or unimportant, especially if compared to the actual name of
      “the video” (Innocence of Muslims) or a neutrally descriptive
      term for “the video”, such as “a low-budget production
      depicting the prophet Muhammad in a negative light”.

      Notice
      who uses these terms, repeatedly and almost without exception,
      whenever they refer to “the video”.

      • notafeminista

        Isn’t that just your opinion?

      • Ray in VT

        You forgot “silly video”.

  • MrNutso

    So Peter, the real bottom line is that we should have a real investigation of what happened, what was said about it and what should be done with real authoritative results.  When the investigation is completed, the results can presented.  No politics, no finger pointing, just the truth.

    Now, let me tell you about the tooth fairy.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    At the end of the day, it comes down to leadership.

    Lack of leadership with the security concerns prior to the attack.  Perhaps a lack of leadership for support during the attack.  And finally the leadership appears to step up to cover their tracks  in the aftermath of the attack.

  • OnPointComments

    When the hearings get uncomfortably close to the truth, will President Obama claim Executive Privilege, ala Fast and Furious?

  • politicalrealist

    What happened at Benghazi was a terrible tragedy.  Would more security have prevented it, impossible to say. What I’m curious about is if more security had been requested and not provided for the consulate in Benghazi, what was so important that Christopher Stevens decided to travel there even though the security was less than was desired?  

    • OnPointComments

      The Obama administration had created a narrative that his foreign policy in the Middle East was successful.  Part of proving this successful policy was to make everything in Libya seem as normal as possible, including establishing a permanent outpost in Benghazi.  Hillary Clinton had a planned trip to Libya later in the year.

    • notafeminista

      Well..what difference does it make now…I mean really.

  • donniethebrasco

    We all know politicians lie.

    The point is that the usually use language to obscure and try not to say anything.

    The reason why this story is interesting is that there is documentation and testimony that exposes a clear lie told by a senior State Department official.

    Her lie saved the election for Obama, but ruined her chance to be Secretary of State.

    It would have hurt Obama to have a Al Qaeda attack to occur 6 weeks before the presidential election.

    With the support of the press, Obama was able to sustain the video cause long enough to keep the Democrats energized to vote.

    It also has sustained long enough for people to still believe that Obama and Hilary didn’t lie, or if they did it is nothing compared to what Bush did.

    I am just sad that the press didn’t do their job and let Obama get away with it.

    • northeaster17

      How would such an attack hurt his chances?

      • OnPointComments

        One of the tenets of his presidential campaign was that his diplomacy was working in the Middle East.  The State Department adopted a strategy to give the appearance of normalcy at the Libyan embassy and consulate as proof that the foreign policy was working.  Normalcy included denying requests for additional security.  The Obama campaign was trumpeting “Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive” and “Al Qaeda is on the run.”  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper touted the party line that the Arab Spring and US policy had brought moderate Muslims to power, even calling the Muslim Brotherhood a “secular” organization.  The attack in Benghazi proved that his successful foreign policy was all a farce.

        • northeaster17

          But Bin Laden is dead and the Arab spring has brought about change. Along with much peril. That being said, the attack on Benghazi is hardly indicative of his entire term. That’s grasping at straws and entirely hypocritcal.

          • OnPointComments

            The attack in Benghazi happened less than two months before the election, and laid bare the claim that Al Qaeda was on the run.  The references to a YouTube video for weeks, in essence the equivalent of “Move along … there’s nothing to see here,” was an attempt to hide his foreign policy failure.

          • Ray in VT

            So a group that has suffered significant losses and is “on the run” can’t hit back at all?  I guess that you’ve never dealt with a wounded animal.

          • notafeminista

            Fair point.  PPACA is going to be the legacy.

          • northeaster17

            What’s a feminista?

          • notafeminista

            “Do your own homework.” ~ TF

      • donniethebrasco

         Why did he lie about the attacks when he knew the truth?

        I believe it is because he didn’t want a Al Qaeda attack to happen during his presidency during election season.

        Obama lied to the UN about the video.  He said nothing about Al Qaeda even though he knew about Al Qaeda.

        Or it could be, Don’t get Al Qaeda mad by saying that they committed a terrorist attack.  They might do more terrorist attacks.

        • northeaster17

          What if his coming out and telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth put more lives in danger? Why tell an enemy all that you know when you know it? Also, the hang up on exactly what kind of attack we experienced is baffling to me. Did he use the word terrorist or not and when did he use it.
          An attack is an attack.

          • notafeminista

            Oh if only the NYTimes had your type of thought process.

  • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

    The President said it was an act of terrorism in his 1st interview about the subject. The CIA gave Susan Rice the talking points. Where there any things we did not know that came out of the so called hearing? 

    • OnPointComments

      I didn’t know about the coercion of government employees to keep them silent.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Are you curious about how the talking points were changed under pressure form the State Dept then check out this reporting.  They took out everything that was true and left in the parts that were false.  We still don’t know who made these changes and get them under oath so they can justify their actions.

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=2

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Weekly Standard?

        We have plenty of competition for worst link of the day.

        • notafeminista

          You’ve commented several times on what you believe to be unsatisfactory links.  Who or what would you find to be credible?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Offhand, anything you don’t claim in public to read is my idea of “credible”.

            This falls under the heading of “Do your own homework.”

          • StilllHere

            Anything that agrees with his fixed world view.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Read it, you might learn something.  It is a well researched piece of reporting.

          Or if you prefer to spend your time circling the wagons please continue.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Peter Wehner had, earlier this hour, tried to soft-talk the differences between Whitewater to Iran Contra to this into nothingness.

    This is a reporter who hasn’t noticed anything unbalanced in the “partisanship” since Election Day 2008. That BothSidesDoIt. Really?

  • http://www.facebook.com/kathleen.fischer.963 Kathleen Fischer

    As I remember it the Sunday Rice was on talk shows it was suggested  that Al Queada might have used the cover of the video protests to attack the embassy.  That Hicks wanted to send jets to “scramble the crowd” suggests a large demonstration. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Or it suggests a large number of attackers.

    • OnPointComments

      There were no video protests in Benghazi.  There were no protests or large demonstrations in Benghazi.

  • hennorama

    Yesterday’s Benghazi hearing just seems like second-guessing decisions made during a chaotic situation in the heat of the moment. Where’s the scandal? It’s all Monday morning quarterbacking, and conclusions in search of evidence, with Grandstanding Opinionated Representatives “testifying” and asking leading questions.

    What this amounted to is a case of three good and conscientious, yet clearly emotional, senior-level executives getting on the record with their version of events, but who added virtually ZERO new information.

    • donniethebrasco

      It is the coverup.

      Susan Rice and Barack Obama lied to the media concerning the video.

      People talked about the video and not about the Al Qaeda attack, so that Obama would not be associated with a Al Qaeda attack before the election.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Watergate was all about the cover up.

      • hennorama

        donniethebrasco -TY for your opinions.

        If you instead consider your words to be facts, then PPP – Please Provide Proof.

        • notafeminista

          We’re still waiting for TF’s list of approved sources.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            If I told you once, it’s “Anything you don’t link to.”

          • notafeminista

            Indeed – I saw your list below with nary a source in sight.

            Makes it much more difficult to do one’s homework..and of course more difficult to question you. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Keep JAQing it, Nota.

          • notafeminista

            I didn’t ask a question TF.

          • hennorama

            not/donnie/a/the/feminista/brasco – TY you both for your response. I assume the “We”in your response meant you both replied simultaneously.

            To be as clear as possible – for your information and for future reference – I am not TF.

            Perhaps you’ve simply lost track or are unable to discern individuality.

            One supposes a dual personality might be a hindrance, or perhaps the voices are becoming too loud to tell apart.

            I couldn’t possibly comment, however, as I am not a health care professional.

            Again, donniethebrasco – if you’re in there – PPP; Please Provide Proof.

          • Ray in VT

            Most of you look the same to me.

          • hennorama

            “We” are stardust, after all … it’s a small, small world.

            Apologies in advance for the earbug.

      • Gregg Smith

        Which begs the question, could he get away with it if the media was not complicit? Maybe “uncurious” is a better word.

        Does the notion that Muslims are so bat crazy they will go into uncontrollable fits of rage because of a juvenile video nobody saw make sense on any level?

    • notafeminista

      Seems like your opinion.  And..maybe an attempt at minimizing – assuming you used the word “zero” in all caps deliberately.

      • hennorama

        notafeminista – TY for your response.

        Congratulations on having characterized an opinion as an opinion.

    • OnPointComments

      Do you think it is wrong to second guess critical decisions that were made during a chaotic situation?  What if those decisions were wrong with the deadly result of the loss of four American lives?  What if the people who made these deadly incorrect decisions then concocted a lie to cover them up?  What if the people who made these deadly incorrect decisions are in a position to repeat the error in judgment again?

      • hennorama

        OPC – TY for your response. Insert the usual pleasantries here. Please be alerted to the length of my response.

        Responses to your questions, in order:

        No. But if answers have been given, is a repetition of the same questions over and over useful? (Q: Hey coach, why did you go for it on 4th down? A: I thought we would convert. Q: Hey coach, your team hadn’t converted a single 4th down all season. Why did you go for it on 4th down? A: Next question, please.)

        “Wrong decisions” resulting in death(s), whether or not the dead are Americans, are bad However, one needs to separate the decisions prior to the events from those during and after the events. One might fairly conclude that decisions prior to the Benghazi events were those that led to “the loss of four American lives”, and other casualties. Had security been better, perhaps the outcome would have been different. Had the compound been better fortified, the outcome may have been different. Had there not been a need for diplomatic outreach and intelligence agency presence, the outcome may have been different. Etc.

        Your question requires two conclusions – A) decisions were incorrect, AND resulted in death(s); B) there was a subsequent lie. That is an elaborate premise.

        Your question assumes all of the above, and adds an additional characterization of “error in judgment” – a further elaboration.
        =========
        Please allow some questioning of your questions:

        What if all the decisions made were right, with the same loss of lives?

        What if some decisions were right, and some were wrong, and some people were killed and some were saved?

        What if some decisions were made not only with Benghazi in mind, but also with concerns about security to the US Embassy in Tripoli, and some people were saved, and some were not; or some were saved, some were “only” wounded, and some were killed?

        What if different decisions were made, jets were scrambled, and 4 Special Ops forces were sent to Benghazi, and the jets ran out of fuel over the Mediterranean, and/or the 4 added SO personnel were killed, or an attack happened in Tripoli and because those 4 SO personnel weren’t there, others were wounded or killed? Would those decisions be “wrong” or “right”?

        Lots of “what ifs” that are ultimately unanswerable, right?

        There are multiple timeframes involved in Benghazi:

        1. Events before the attacks. Security and intelligence should have been better. No argument about that, as security obviously was insufficient to defend against the attacks that occurred. However, diplomacy and CIA activities in Libya were obviously risky at the time, especially in Benghazi. Balancing risks, political and intelligence gathering goals, with security needs is always difficult.

        2. The initial attack and response on the ground. Hard to find fault with anyone’s actions on the ground, with the possible exception of some of the local militia security personnel guarding the consulate compound. The CIA team at the annex gathered 40 to 60 local militia and arrived at the consulate compound about 45 minutes after the start of the attack and evacuated remaining personnel and casualties in about 15 minutes, retreating to the CIA annex. Unfortunately they could not locate Amb. Stevens.

        3. The time after the first attack and before the second attack. This was the focus of much of the “what-ifs” from Mr. Hicks and others during the most recent hearing. Why weren’t jets sent? That was asked and answered, as Mr. Hicks himself said. Why weren’t the 4 SO personnel sent? DOD says they were needed in Tripoli, and were not “combat assault ready”. As a reminder, a six-man security team, including two DOD personnel was already en route from the US Embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi, but they got stuck at the airport after their arrival in Benghazi for about 4 hours, unable to arrange transport. They arrived at the CIA annex just before the second attack began.

        4. The second attack and response on the ground. Again, it’s hard to find fault with anyone’s actions on the ground.

        5. Afterwards. This is the so-called “cover-up” period. “They didn’t call it “terrorism” – Susan Rice lied – she was sent out to lie – they changed the talking points – they won’t let whistle blowers testify – they demoted whistle blowers – Hillary – Obama – why didn’t they call it terrorism – they blamed the video – Watergate – Iran Contra – fill in the blank.

        The argument here presumably is that it’s never allowable to put a bad event into the best possible light, assuming that is what was being done by the administration, of course.

        The “Obama/Hillary screwed up/covered up/lied” argument never found traction immediately after the Benghazi events, and Pres. Obama was reelected. Sec. Clinton has left office, but may run for President in 2016. The ARB issued a report and made numerous recommendations. No one has yet been captured and held to account for the attacks.

        This story will continue to be fodder for political grandstanding, none of which will change what happened.

        We need to improve security at our diplomatic missions, and that is the single most likely outcome of these events. The rest is politics, pure and simple.

        Thank you again for your response.

        • OnPointComments

          Thank you for your response.  Please be alerted to the brevity of my answer.  :)
           
          It is the most difficult decisions, especially those that are made during a chaotic situation in the heat of the moment, that need to be scrutinized most carefully.  When those difficult decisions may have resulted in deaths, those in authority need to be certain that the correct decisions were made.  In my opinion, certainty has not yet been reached.

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY for your brevity.

            which “… difficult decisions, especially those that are made during a chaotic situation in the heat of the moment … need to be scrutinized most carefully” when it comes to the Benghazi incidents?

        • pete18

           ”The argument here presumably is that it’s never allowable to put a bad
          event into the best possible light, assuming that is what was being done
          by the administration, of course.”

          Are you that much of a water carrier for these guys that you cannot acknowledge
          the simple fact that they knowingly lied and mislead the public after the fact? Can you not distinguish the difference between lying and “putting a bad event in a good light?”
          Is your moral and civic compass so skewed by partisanship that you cannot recognize those lies to be worthy of great concern and condemnation?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “ZERO new information”

      Did you know that the second in command in Libya was demoted when he challenged the Susan Rice talking points?  Did you know he was not interviewed by the ARB?  Did you know that Hillary wasn’t interviewed by ARB?  Did you know that the Hillary’s chief of staff sent a lawyer to sit in on interviews with Hicks and a congressman with oversight authority and attempted to limit access to other staffers?  Did you know what the folks in Libya thought about Susan Rice’s talking points?
      Did you know  that Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs at the
      State Department, sent an e-mail on Sept. 12, 2012, in which she reported, “the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Shariah, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”?  Did you know that there were multiple stand down orders?  Did you know why Stevens was in Benghazi?  Did you know that Clinton was briefed at 2am the night of the attack and there was no mention of a youtube video?

      None of this was in the public domain prior to the testimony.

      • hennorama

        WftC – TY for your response. I appreciate and respect your views.

        A few points:

        An accurate quote of my post would be “What this amounted to is a case of three good and conscientious, yet clearly emotional, senior-level executives getting on the record with their version of events, but who added virtually ZERO new information.”

        Even if you wanted to truncate that sentence, you must be fair and include the word “virtually” in conjunction with “ZERO new information.”

        According to an online WSJ article, Mr. Hicks said “I’ve been effectively demoted from deputy chief of mission to desk officer”. Please note the word “effectively” which means “for all practical purposes” rather than “actually”.

        As to the specific remaining questions:

        Not the ARB specifically, but it was widely reported that he was interviewed by “investigators”.
        Yes.
        No.
        “the folks in Libya” is too general to allow for an answer
        No.
        No. But “multiple stand down orders” would not be surprising given the chaotic circumstances, and the security concerns for other installations, especially the embassy in Tripoli.
        Your question implies there was a single reason for Amb. Stevens’ presence, which is unlikely.
        No, but so what?

        TY again for your response.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          There are many unanswered questions.  I’ll concede that Congressional hearings are not the most efficient method toward getting to the truth — too much theater.

          Maybe if the media was doing their job we wouldn’t need the hearings and the regime spin meisters wouldn’t be so brazen.  Jay Carney was still bringing up Mitt Romney’s tweets this week while trying to deflect questions on the facts. Why have none of the 30 or so survivors been interviewed in a prime time interview?  60 minutes?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “The media”?

            Your idea of reputable media has been crying wolf about Benghazi for so long that reasonable people have stopped listening to them.

          • notafeminista

            I guess that explains today’s topic at OnPoint.

        • notafeminista

          AP is referring to Mr. Hicks as “former” US official.  He is no longer deputy chief of the mission. 

          Could you cite one instance (prior to Benghazi) during which the US gave an order to stand down when it was being attacked?  Please offer a source suitable to all board posters in your response.

          • hennorama

            notafeminista – AP and others are referring to George W. Bush as “former” President. He is no longer President of the United States.

            If Mr. Bush is referred to as “former” POTUS, does that mean he was “demoted”?

            Did you have a point in making your “AP is referring to Mr. Hicks …” statement?

            The rest of your post is “referred to” as “rhetoric” and therefore requires no response.

            Please offer a response in return, “suitable to all board posters”.

          • Gregg Smith

            Why won’t you answer a direct question?

          • hennorama

            Gregg “I quit reading” Smith – Why won’t you read for comprehension?

          • Gregg Smith

            “Could you cite one instance (prior to Benghazi) during which the US gave an order to stand down when it was being attacked?”

            I can’t, and Ill take your non answer as a “no”.

            My first Iris bloomed last week.

          • notafeminista

            Former President Bush was no longer eligible for hire at the position he last held. (i.e. term limited)

            Conversely Mr. Hicks is still employed by the State Department.  One could argue that he is no longer deputy chief of the mission because there is no longer an Ambassador for whom to be a deputy.  Nor however, has he been re-assigned as deputy chief of mission anywhere else. Yes, he has been demoted.

            The rest of my response is a question to you.  You can choose to answer it or not (as you have done) but it is not rhetorical.

          • hennorama

            notafeminista – first you wrote “AP is referring to Mr. Hicks as “former” US official.”

            Presumably you wrote this in an attempt to show that Mr. Hicks was “demoted”, despite the fact that Mr. Hicks himself said that he was “effectively demoted”.

            Now you write “Conversely Mr. Hicks is still employed by the State Department. One could argue that he is no longer deputy chief of the mission because there is no longer an Ambassador for whom to be a deputy. Nor however, has he been re-assigned as deputy chief of mission anywhere else. Yes, he has been demoted.

            Fist of all, if “ Mr. Hicks is still employed by the State Department” then is your original statement that “AP is referring to Mr. Hicks as “former” US official” accurate? Can one still be employed by the State Dept. and simultaneously be a “former” US official”? Please explain.

            Second, as Mr. Hicks himself said he was “effectively demoted”, how do you conclude “Yes, he has been demoted” After all, doesn’t Mr. Hicks have knowledge about his own circumstances that are vastly superior to your own?

            Third, if, as you wrote, “The rest of my response is a question to you. … but it is not rhetorical,” then please restate your non-rhetorical question. In my understanding of the English language, the following is rhetorical, as it contains both a question, and a request that is virtually impossible to comply with:

            “Could you cite one instance (prior to Benghazi) during which the US gave an order to stand down when it was being attacked? Please offer a source suitable to all board posters in your response.”

            If you choose to restate your question, please define all terms, in a manner “suitable to all board posters.” and citing all sources for your definitions, of course.

            Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

          • notafeminista

            Answer or not, the question was not rhetorical.

          • StilllHere

            Nice touch.

      • Ray in VT

        “Did you know he was not interviewed by the ARB?”  Are you referring to Mr. Hicks?  Is so, then according to this

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-congressional-hearing-live-blog

        he said at the hearing that “he was interviewed for two hours by the accountability review board”.

    • Gregg Smith

      It wasn’t that at all.

  • StilllHere

    What difference does it make how many ambassadors didn’t die during the Bush administrations and how many times the Bush administration didn’t cover it up?

    • donniethebrasco

       Still Bush’s fault

    • Ray in VT

      How many countries have we invaded based upon faulty and misleading intelligence?  4 Americans dead in Benghazi.  4,000+ Americans in Iraq.

      • notafeminista

        So you object to the 4000 and not the 4?

        • Ray in VT

          I object to pretty much all loss of life, but it is a risk that one takes when one enters certain lines of work.  Do you only object to Americans dying overseas when there is a Democrat to try to smear?

          • notafeminista

            No more than you object to loss of life only when there is a Republican to smear.

          • Ray in VT

            And when have I done that?  I think that I’ve been pretty fair regarding criticism of former President Bush.  It’s not like I’ve accused him of being a drunk, or not being eligible to be President, or an enemy of America, as some here have done with Mr. Obama.

            Hopefully, thanks to the depths to which the GOP has stooped by taking in people who hurt their national brand, like Michelle Bachmann, I won’t have to suffer living under a Republican President for some time.

      • Gregg Smith

        No, that’s a horrible analogy. Everybody and their brother in 2002 was saying the same thing. NOBODY was saying what the Obama talking points were. No one. The talking points were changed. 

        • Ray in VT

          I guess that it is a horrible analogy.  On the one hand you have an attack that killed four people, and whatever was said about the attack afterwards, no one else died.  On the other hand, you have massively faulty, misrepresented and false intelligence that went on for years (not 17 days) that was sold to the public as an justification to get us into a 10 year, trillion dollar war that killed over 4,000 Americans because of what was said.  The latter is clearly the far worse situation.

          “Everybody and their brother”.  Ha.  Except for the intelligence community that said that there was no operational links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or the various parts of the internal and external community of experts whose voices were minimalized when they voiced concerns or doubts.  It’s a good thing that we didn’t hear from a lot of them until after we had invaded another nation.

          • Gregg Smith

            We’ve been through this before, no Bush didn’t lie.  I will defend it and I have, you will not admit you are defending the indefensible. I have to give you credit because you don’t say Bush lied about WMD but you won’t admit that either. But this isn’t about Bush, that’s a shallow distraction. Say all you want about Bush, it changes nothing.

            You have accused me of hating all things “D” and excusing all things “R”. Why would I do that? That is just plain weird to me. I have nothing against the alphabet. Do you really think my dislike of Obama has nothing to do with his policies? Or are you projecting your mindset onto me? Maybe it makes sense to you but it doesn’t to me.

          • Ray in VT

            It’s not about me, and Bush did lie.  It matters, in part, because those who seem so willing to excuse those lies want to hold the current President to a much higher standard.  What was not good for the gander is just fine for the goose.

          • Gregg Smith

            Hypocrisy!? It that it? Assume all you say is true (it’s not), you’ve proved hypocrisy? So what? What do you have against harmless hypocrites? Defend away.

          • Ray in VT

            I dislike hypocrisy greatly, even more than I dislike stupidity and ignorance, and all three of those were pretty well displayed yesterday.

            Hey, how’s hounding that Saudi kid going, anways?  I haven’t heard much about it lately, but, then again, I don’t want to lower my IQ by trolling The Blaze.

          • Gregg Smith

            He was a bad bad man but no one cares. What’s your point? Do you think he was harmless? Is it some kind of indictment on Beck? Where was Beck wrong? Where?

          • Ray in VT

            That’s the great thing about conspiracies.  One doesn’t need evidence, and a lack of evidence is just proof of a conspriacy.  Show me where he was right to go after this guy, seeing as how law enforcement cleared him.  There’s plenty of real bad men to go after, like the militia dude in Wisconsin who illegally had guns, plus some bomb making materials.  Do worry though, he’s just a lone wolf.

    • jimino

      You obviously don’t care about anyone else dying if it’s not an “ambassador” but what about all these?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

  • donniethebrasco

    Hilary Clinton:

    1. Whitewater
    2. Vince Foster
    3. Benghazi
    4. Rose Law Firm

    Don’t get in her way.  She is the Richard Nixon of the left.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Hahaha.

      You’re so deep in the shite you don’t know you smell. I’ll leave it to someone else with the patience to rebut every lie you managed to post in 20 succinct words.

    • StilllHere

      Not comparable, more dead bodies for her.

  • donniethebrasco

    “bush’s fault”

    anyone?

  • donniethebrasco

    What I love about OnPoint.

    If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

    If someone says something on OnPoint (or MSNBC) and 15 people hear it, does it justify bloated, government funded NPR budgets?

  • jimino

    If we determine the intelligence was flawed, the response was handled incompetently, and high ranking officials weren’t completely forthcoming immediately after the incident, then should we give Presidential Medals of Freedom to those involved?   Or has the standard changed?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/politics/14cnd-meda.html?_r=0

    • StilllHere

      “What difference does it make?”

    • notafeminista

      President Bush did it so it must be okay.  Really?

  • orwelllutz

    Bengahzi:
    Anyone looking for truth within the context of diplomacy is misguided, at best, successfully brainwashed at worst.  Both of your guests emphasized the “search for truth and transparency” where there is none – and where your guests know there is none.  The failure to acknowledge that there are facts that are routinely suppressed is, I believe, a propagation of the naiveté of the American people.  The seemingly sincere pursuit of truth in this matter is blatantly insincere.
     
    The hearings themselves are theater, meant to divert the attention of the citizenry away from what the “conservatives” are doing in the shadows – actions they are taking that are damaging to American families.   Their continuing, and successful efforts to defeat implementation of Dodd Franks Act of 2010 is a major betrayal of the citizenry,  as is their dogged pursuit of “Trickle Down” policies and  Free Market Capitalism (sans regulation), which no longer serves America’s workers.
     
    It seems, Tom, that once could produce a never-ending show that compares today’s theater to that of Teddy Roosevelt’s fraudulent “anti-trust legacy, and then the protection of Utilities during and after the West Coast Energy Crisis (that wasn’t), the 1978 declaration that the U.S. was running out of natural gas, the meaningless “fines” and “penalties” assessed against Wall Street, and the history of U.S. industry’s epiphany (19th century ???) that buying the government was so much more efficient  arguing with it.

    At least then,  you would be serving to lift the blindfold over the American mind.

  • Trond33

    Benghazi is all about politics.  Mainly on two fronts.  Yes, immediately afterwards political maneuvering at the higher levels of the State Department.  You find that in any organization after a major event, it is an inherent aspect of organizational behavior.  Does this amount to “high crimes and treason,” any logical person would say no. 

    More troubling is the politics being played by Congressional Republicans.  The ongoing Republican attempts to derail the Obama Administration by raising the Benghazi affair to a watershed political event at a Watergate level is irresponsible and reckless toying with the strings of power.  The ongoing Republican “McCarthyist” witch hunt does little to ascertain the real faults in the system, nor start the rectification process to insure a similar event does not occur in the future.  

    No, Benghazi is right there in fringe politics.  In the same vein as the 9/11 Conspirators or the anti-Obama “Birthers.”  All barking up a non-existent tree and exposing circular logic that is akin to a dog chasing its own tail.  

    It is a wasteful political exercise that drains attention away from real issues and problems facing the US. 

    • notafeminista

      Didn’t you mean “-est” as in “highest levels of the State Department?” 

      I guess its only crimes and treason when a CEO does it.

  • marygrav

    What this conversation proves it that WE should all be ware of the leven of the Neocons.  They are back in all there former glory trying to take US places where we have already lived our collective nightmares in war and financial famine.

    Of course they are using new incarnations: John McCain and Lindsey Graham.  Old Speak in the Weekly Standard under new ownership but using old writers.  Commentary Magazine and Neoconservative are one in the same, or has your memory been clouded because like G.W. Bush said, “we’ll all be dead when it happens.  Yes, brain dead.

    Has it ever occurred to you that if Gaddafi had been left in place there would have been no Benghazi?  To help our ally in its pursuit in Smashing all it enemy states, the West, made up its mind that Gaddafi was the enemy and not the Islamist or Talaban, he had to be destroyed.  Beside, why should a “monster” be in charge of all that oil in Libya, when a Eurocentric ally was so close by to guide the Natives.

    Gaddafi was convince by Washington to give up his nuclear plans, and he had even began to help Italy drown the African who were crossing the sea into Europe for a better life.  He kissed up and up until they got his neck in a vice and choked him with his own stupidity.  Having no WMD, he could be disposed of.  But did not take the precautions to collect all the loose arms that are now flooding North Africa and the Middle East.

    This is why Iran is cautious.  And besides they have not forgotten 1953.  Most American even know what AJAX was all about.

    The Neocons are preparing for Election 2014 and 2016 and must collect its army of media pundent for its propaganda war and armchair generals.  The Dragons will speak and the Western Armies will march.

    Benghazi had more to do with US hubris than with anything else.  Americans are too quick to believe that they are loved and chosen by God to mind other peoples’ business.  They forget that Colonialism is over and the Native have enough arms and sense to free him/herself without outside help. Assad may be next, but Syria will cause sleepless days and nights.

    BEWARE OF THE LEVEN (IDEOLOGY) OF THE NEOCONS BECAUSE A LITTLE LEVEN (LIES) FOMENTS THE LUMP.

  • hypocracy1

    Tax money well spent… /facepalm

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cacimbo-Smith/1142235495 Cacimbo Smith

    Ernesto Londoño, national reporter for The Washington Post.
    Come on – after listening to this it is apparent this guy is a member of the Obama administration. A reporter looks at facts. This guy was spinning as hard as Jay Carney.

  • JGC

    “I think her dereliction of duty and lack of leadership should preclude her from holding any office… I don’t think she should read every cable…but from one of the five most dangerous countries in the world, there’s no excuse for her not reading the cables.”  - Rand Paul, current Senator and probable future Presidential candidate.

    August 6, 2001 – While vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Bush is given a Presidential Daily Briefing memorandum whose headline warns that the Al-Qaeda terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden, is “determined to strike the U.S.”  After being briefed on the document by a C.I.A. analyst, Bush responds, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.” 

    • Ray in VT

      Well, you are quoting a guy who, and I think rightly, criticized the administration’s use of drones using a real filibuster, which, again I can respect, but who then turned around and said “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in
      cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”  Now, while I believe that deadly force is sometimes necessary by law enforcement, droning a liquor store robber seems a bit over the line.

      • hennorama

        As does “a policeman kill[ing] him”, as merely “come[ing] out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash” does not in and of itself justify the use of deadly force.

        • Ray in VT

          Yup.  It all depends.  Is the guy just walking out with a fist full of cash, or is he armed?  If he is armed, then does he appear to be in the act of attempting to use that weapon?  There’s a lot that can be going on in any one situation.

    • OnPointComments

      Did you get your quote from DailyKos or Media Matters?
       
      In August 2001, I knew that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, and I had as much detail as was in the report “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.”
       
      https://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb080601.pdf

    • Gregg Smith

      He tried unsuccessfully in 1993 to bring down the towers. It was no mystery. i’ve always thought that particular talking point was weak.

      But here we had a consulate in a part of the world in turmoil on the first anniversary of 9/11 since the crazies gained footholds in the Middle East. Our Ambassador was begging for security. It was denied, why? IMO it was because beefing up security would be a tacit acknowledgement things were not as rosy as advertised. But they weren’t. It was election time. So when the shit hit the fan the same thought reprocess was doubled down on. Assets were told to stand down. Assets were told to stand down and Obama went to bed. He went to bed. Tragedy ensues so they manufactured the video story out of whole cloth. Enough lies.

      You’re smarter than this JGC, don’t be like the defenders below changing the subject and deflecting. This is awful.

  • Jonathan Campbell

    THere are now many researched articles about exactly what happened at Benghazi, I will post the best I have found at the end of this comment. I want to preface my remarks by stating that I vote Democratic and supported Obama in the last two presidential elections. This is not a partisan rant, but an effort to expose the facts.

    In short:

    1. Ambassador Stevens and the rest of the crew at Benghazi, were involved in a covert CIA operation. Exposing it as a CIA covert operation at the time (it is now exposed as such) would have put dozens of CIA shallow and deep cover agents in extreme danger. That is why the public story about it was a fairy tale.

    2. The CIA was responsible for the security of the both the consulate and the “annex”. They screwed up, big time. They, or someone at State, discounted reports that the operation could come under attack.

    3. The reason for Stevens’ presence was that he was the broker for an arms forwarding operation, moving 400 tons of (formerly) Russian artillery, left in Libya after the fall of Khadafy, to the rebels in Syria. It was covert because it was in direct contradiction to public statements of the US government regarding the US arming the Syrian rebels.

    There are, as I stated above, many well-documented articles about this. Please see, for instance:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-benghazi-affair-uncovering-the-mystery-of-the-benghazi-cia-annex/5320872

  • donniethebrasco

    This is the most comments about a show (except the weekly wraps) since April 1st.

    And it is still only 415.

    Nobody listens to government radio.  It is irrelevant.

    Except for the fact that they get MILLIONS from tax payers.  And they say they don’t need it.

    Stop funding this crap.

    • Ray in VT

      Well, you can always go and post your comments somewhere else.  Personally, I’d rather stop funding programs in the states that say that they hate big government and government spending while, at the same time, being the most eager pigs at the trough.

    • jefe68

      Well now, showing your true colors.
      You could stop posting and listening.I for one would have no problem seeing your posts, funded by my tax dollars as well, being but a whisper in the digital ether. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/gregory.dunkling Gregory Dunkling

    So the big news here is that Gregory Hicks and others were destroying sensitive material IN A HURRY as they felt them might also be under attack in Tripoli. Does this suggest to you that the diplomatic team in Libya was terribly aware of the danger either days or weeks in advance? Their surprise at the rapidly developing events suggests that there was in fact no long-term (i.e. weeks) unresponsiveness from Washington. This caught everybody by surprise.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Well, they were denied requests for enhanced security a month before the attack.  The requests were justified by many events on the ground.

  • Gregg Smith
  • Tyranipocrit

    another disgusting low for republicans.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 23, 2014
In this Thursday, Dec. 20, 2012, file photo, Chet Kanojia, founder and CEO of Aereo, Inc., shows a tablet displaying his company's technology, in New York. Aereo is one of several startups created to deliver traditional media over the Internet without licensing agreements. (AP)

The Supreme Court looks at Aereo, the little startup that could cut your cable cord and up-end TV as we’ve known it. We look at the battle. Plus: a state ban on affirmative action in college admissions is upheld. We’ll examine the implications.

Apr 23, 2014
Attendees of the 2013 Argentina International Coaching Federation meet for networking and coaching training. (ICF)

The booming business of life coaches. Everybody seems to have one these days. Therapists are feeling the pinch. We look at the life coach craze.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 22, 2014
This undated handout photo, taken in 2001, provided by the Museum of the Rockies shows a bronze cast of the Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton known as the Wankel T.rex, in front of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University in Bozeman, Mont. (AP)

As a new Tyrannosaurus Rex arrives at the Smithsonian, we’ll look at its home – pre-historic Montana – and the age when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

 
Apr 22, 2014
Security forces inspect the site of a suicide attack in the town of Suwayrah, 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, April 21, 2014. Suicide bombings and other attacks across Iraq killed and wounded dozens on Monday, officials said, the latest in an uptick in violence as the country counts down to crucial parliament elections later this month. (AP)

We look at Iraq now, two years after Americans boots marched out. New elections next week, and the country on the verge of all-out civil war.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment