Benghazigate - The New GOP Scandal

Darrell Issa created conspiracies and the using of the deaths of 4 Americans for political purposes seems to be falling apart for the GOP. All their supposed proof goes unsupported and apparently that is good enough for them. The rest of us will simply relay on the facts.

The Facts About Benghazi

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: December 30, 2013

An exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
The report by David Kirkpatrick, The Times’s Cairo bureau chief, and his team turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault, as Republicans have insisted without proof for more than a year. The report concluded that the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and other support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and that it was fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
In a rational world, that would settle the dispute over Benghazi, which has further poisoned the poisonous political discourse in Washington and kept Republicans and Democrats from working cooperatively on myriad challenges, including how best to help Libyans stabilize their country and build a democracy. But Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.
On the Sunday talk shows, Representatives Mike Rogers and Darrell Issa, two Republicans who are some of the administration’s most relentless critics of this issue, dismissed The Times’s investigation and continued to press their own version of reality on Benghazi.
Mr. Issa talked of an administration “cover-up.” Mr. Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has called Benghazi a “preplanned, organized terrorist event,” said his panel’s findings that Al Qaeda was involved was based on an examination of 4,000 classified cables. If Mr. Rogers has evidence of a direct Al Qaeda role, he should make it public. Otherwise, The Times’s investigation, including extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack, stands as the authoritative narrative.
While the report debunks Republican allegations, it also illuminates the difficulties in understanding fast-moving events in the Middle East and in parsing groups that one moment may be allied with the West and in another, turn adversarial. Americans are often careless with the term “Al Qaeda,” which strictly speaking means the core extremist group, founded by Osama bin Laden, that is based in Pakistan and bent on global jihad.
Republicans, Democrats and others often conflate purely local extremist groups, or regional affiliates, with Al Qaeda’s international network. That prevents understanding the motivations of each group, making each seem like a direct, immediate threat to the United States and thus confusing decision-making.
The report is a reminder that the Benghazi tragedy represents a gross intelligence failure, something that has largely been overlooked in the public debate. A team of at least 20 people from the Central Intelligence Agency, including highly skilled commandos, was operating out of an unmarked compound about a half-mile southeast of the American mission when the attack occurred. Yet, despite the C.I.A. presence and Ambassador Stevens’s expertise on Libya, “there was little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests,” a State Department investigation found. The C.I.A. supposedly did its own review. It has not been made public, so there is no way to know if the agency learned any lessons.

 

One should watch a couple of the interviews given by Kirkpatrick. He doesn't exactly embrace these conclusions as set forth in the Times opinion peice. The main issue many have with this editorial is that it attempts to claim the entire Benghazi incident (& the ensuing cover-up) is rendered a non-issue now based solely on the label applied to the terrorists...whether the terrorists were "Central Al Queda" or Al Queda-like terrorist. In the end, does it really matter their afilliation? Is one terror group different from another when their focus is to kill as many Americans as possible?

Is the administration somehow off the hook because, in the Times opinion, the terrorists who killed our people aren't "Central Al Queda"? I doubt the families care if the terrorists were Al Queda or Al Queda wannabes.

And obviously the main point wasn't addressed: What were BO & Hillary doing while our people were being slaughtered? Radio & video feeds were streaming for hours. Someone ordered the Seals to stand down.

 

Proven false again and again.

 

So, the question was: "What were BO & Hillary doing while our people were being slaughtered"? And your answer is "false"?

 

Where do you think they were?

 

If past behavior is any indication, BO was pandering to his millionaire cronies at some fundraiser & Hillary was scouring the back streets & brothels looking for Slick Willie. Or they were in the White House monitoring the attack in real time....and ordering the SEALS to stand down.
But why should I (or anyone else) to speculate? Why are the 2 clowns so hesitant to just come clean with us & tell us what they were doing as our people were begging for help & being slaughtered on a live stream?

 

So you have no Idea but in your opinion, they must have been doing something scandalous. Yeah, conspiracy freak right here folks.

 

....or they could just tell us what they were doing as our people were begging for their lives & being slaughtered, right?

You don't have the least bit of interest in what these two leaders were doing in the hours our facility was being attacked & our people were being killed? And just who issued the "stand down" order? Hmmmm

 

So they must have been guilty of doing something heinous because that fits your narrative? If you actually don't know what they were doing, you really can't just make stuff up by referring the assault as proof that they must have been doing something wrong. That just doesn't track. You've been listening to Darrell Issa for too long.

 

I can explain this entire obsession the Right-wing has with this attack very easily. This Benghazi nonsense is simply the fact that Republicans cut funding for the State Department which caused less security to be available in the first place and now want to shift the blame that resulted from the attack to the same people that warned them about cutting the State Department budget. Simple enough.

 

Actually, there's a bit of truth in your post. You are correct when you say they must have been doing something....the question is what were they doing? Their refusal to be straightforward with us only leads to speculation. Their failure to answer a very basic question only fosters suspicion. This attack took place over the course of many hours, why shouldn't we want to know what the President of the United States & the Secretary of State were doing during this time? Who ordered the SEALS to stand down?

 

No conspiracy theory here just a series of verifiable facts that caused the deaths of 4 brave Americans. Conspiracy theories are for Right-wing lunatics.

 

Reports of a military stand-down order have circulated almost since the night of the attacks, which unfolded in two stages over several hours at two locations — the U.S. diplomatic post and a nearby CIA building, where survivors of the first assault took shelter.
Such reports increased earlier this year after congressional testimony from Stevens‘ deputy, Greg Hicks, who said that a site security team at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had been ordered to stand down — that is, not to go to Benghazi and battle terrorists or rescue U.S. personnel. Mr. Hicks noted that the site security team leader, Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, expressed frustration over being ordered to stand down.
But Col. Gibson said Wednesday that no stand-down order was given, according to the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. The subcommittee held a classified briefing with Col. Gibson; retired Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, former commander of U.S. Africa Command; and Navy Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.
“Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to ‘stand down’ by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi,” the subcommittee said in a rare statement about a closed-door briefing.
Instead, the site security team was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend the embassy and its staff in case terrorists also struck in the capital while the Benghazi post was under attack, and to assist the wounded who were being evacuated to Tripoli after the first phase of the fighting had ended, the statement said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz2pLVDQnlS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter​

 

Verifiable facts? Yet your very posts show diametrically opposing sworn testimoies

 

So was he or wasn't he? This has proven to be an evolving story & your article was written over 6 months ago.

 

If the guy in charge says that no stand-down order was given, I believe him. PERIOD!

 

My! That sounds just like the guy in charge tell Americans "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. PERIOD!" They lied once (or more), why is this one the truth?

 

Do you apply this same reasoning in every instance?

 

Do you apply any reason to anything?

 

Facts got in his way so he is on with the insults again!