Benghazi Simplified

[Zam-Zam]

Trey Gowdy's 2-year probe was summarized in an 800 page report that I'm sure everyone here read cover-to-cover before commenting on it. I know I didn't. Some have commented that the report was partisan. They even say this as if it were a profound statement.

Of course it was partisan. Just as everything done by any group of liberals is partisan. Or as the kids like to say, "Duh!".

To me, Benghazi comes down to a few simple facts, which are not in dispute by anyone:

1) Someone in the Obama administration sent Chris Stevens to Benghazi.

2) Someone in the Obama administration was responsible for Chris Steven's security detail.

3) As it turned out, that security was woefully inadequate.

4) The attack that killed Chris Stevens and three others took place on September 11, which is a date when one would think the US would be on heightened alert, especially in a part of the world like Benghazi.

The second part of #4 is not a fact but an assumption, but it seems like a reasonable assumption, at least to me.

So, should more have been done to protect the ambassador? Again, the answer is "Duh!".

Whether or not anyone should be held accountable seems like a moot point to me. No one will be held accountable, because that's just the way things work.

The President, of course, whether his name be Obama or Bush or anyone else, is ultimately responsible for the what happens in his or her administration. It comes with the job.

That doesn't mean that those with power are going to hold themselves accountable. For anything. Ever.

And that's just the way it is. So I've moved on. Whether or not you do the same is up to you.

 

[as seen on tv]

actually the top of mind questions are:

1 - Who fabricated the "youtube" cover story, and why?
2 - where were Hillary and Obama during the "action"? Not in the situation room, clearly
3 - What was in the CIA funded Bengahzi "safe house"
4 - How did the terrorists know where the safe house was, and what was in it?
5 - Why weren't troops scrambled from Italy to defend the ambassador, or attempt a rescue?

 

[Zam-Zam]

actually the top of mind questions are:

1 - Who fabricated the "youtube" cover story, and why?
2 - where were Hillary and Obama during the "action"? Not in the situation room, clearly
3 - What was in the CIA funded Bengahzi "safe house"
4 - How did the terrorists know where the safe house was, and what was in it?
5 - Why weren't troops scrambled from Italy to defend the ambassador, or attempt a rescue?

Those are questions that will likely go unanswered forever. Someone would have to be honest and forthright with the American people, and I just don't see that happening.

As for the "youtube" story, that just wasn't a lie, it was a dumb lie, and the public saw through it rather quickly. Susan Rice and others were left with egg on their face, which may have been somewhat gratifying to opponents of the administration, but does nothing to further the cause of justice for the four dead men.

 

[bdtex]

Trey Gowdy's 2-year probe was summarized in an 800 page report that I'm sure everyone here read cover-to-cover before commenting on it. I know I didn't. Some have commented that the report was partisan. They even say this as if it were a profound statement.

Of course it was partisan. Just as everything done by any group of liberals is partisan. Or as the kids like to say, "Duh!".

To me, Benghazi comes down to a few simple facts, which are not in dispute by anyone:

1) Someone in the Obama administration sent Chris Stevens to Benghazi.

2) Someone in the Obama administration was responsible for Chris Steven's security detail.

3) As it turned out, that security was woefully inadequate.

4) The attack that killed Chris Stevens and three others took place on September 11, which is a date when one would think the US would be on heightened alert, especially in a part of the world like Benghazi.

The second part of #4 is not a fact but an assumption, but it seems like a reasonable assumption, at least to me.

So, should more have been done to protect the ambassador? Again, the answer is "Duh!".

Whether or not anyone should be held accountable seems like a moot point to me. No one will be held accountable, because that's just the way things work.

The President, of course, whether his name be Obama or Bush or anyone else, is ultimately responsible for the what happens in his or her administration. It comes with the job.

That doesn't mean that those with power are going to hold themselves accountable. For anything. Ever.

And that's just the way it is. So I've moved on. Whether or not you do the same is up to you.

Ambassador Stevens' sister simplified it even better.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...277-chris-stevens-sister-i-dont-blame-clinton

 

[Zam-Zam]

Ambassador Stevens' sister simplified it even better.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...277-chris-stevens-sister-i-dont-blame-clinton

It's nice they don't wish to blame anyone, but it doesn't alter any of the facts I put forth in my top post. I imagine those facts will continue to go unchallenged.

 

[Queen Titania]

So whilst you are all worrying about this - the real questions of why the decent county of Libya was bombed into a state chaos never experienced by mankind before and the brutal murder of their Spiritual leader go unquestioned by you.

The Banking crisis was purposeful - the US was trying to Bankrupt or rather Blackmail Gaddafi into using the Petro Dollar - it didn't work so you bombed him --- both reactions to a choice made by a sovereign county have devastated the whole world -to such a degree that it can never recover -

 

[Zam-Zam]

So whilst you are all worrying about this - the real questions of why the decent county of Libya was bombed into a state chaos never experienced by mankind before and the brutal murder of their Spiritual leader go unquestioned by you.

The Banking crisis was purposeful - the US was trying to Bankrupt or rather Blackmail Gaddafi into using the Petro Dollar - it didn't work so you bombed him --- both reactions to a choice made by a sovereign county have devastated the whole world -to such a degree that it can never recover -

Topic for a different thread, if you care to start one. This one isn't about that.

 

[Craig]

That doesn't mean that those with power are going to hold themselves accountable. For anything. Ever.

Love her or hate her, there is no reason to lie about her. She took responsibility long ago. The summary is, once again, feces occurs...and Gowdy, once again, says there is no "blame" here.


...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/

 

[Zam-Zam]

Love her or hate her, there is no reason to lie about her. She took responsibility long ago. The summary is, once again, feces occurs...and Gowdy, once again, says there is no "blame" here.


...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/

I never mentioned Ms. Clinton, but since you insist, what does "taking responsibility" really mean?

Did she resign?

Did she suffer any consequences? What consequences, specifically?

Does taking responsibility simply mean saying "I take responsibility", and nothing more? Really?

It doesn't take much to impress some people.

 

[Craig]

I never mentioned Ms. Clinton, but since you insist, what does "taking responsibility" really mean?

Did she resign?

Did she suffer any consequences? What consequences, specifically?

Does taking responsibility simply mean saying "I take responsibility", and nothing more? Really?

It doesn't take much to impress some people.

You didn't mention Mrs Clinton? Right...you merely posted yet another post about Benghazi...and stated, quite clearly, that no one would take responsibility. Yet...there it is, right in front of you...Clinton, the Secretary of State during Benghazi, and the sole reason these investigations have continued...doesn't need to have her name bandied about when the position is so obvious.

Yes...stating one is responsible is taking responsibility. Some people simply refuse to see the words in front of them.

 

[bdtex]

Did she suffer any consequences? What consequences, specifically?

Being the subject of a malicious,never-ending, scorched earth smear campaign/political witch-hunt is not a consequence?

 

[Queen Titania]

Being the subject of a malicious,never-ending, scorched earth smear campaign/political witch-hunt is not a consequence?

But -but - She is a Witch! What other hunt do you expect?

 

[Boltlady]

Love her or hate her, there is no reason to lie about her. She took responsibility long ago. The summary is, once again, feces occurs...and Gowdy, once again, says there is no "blame" here.


...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/

Gowdy did not say that there was no blame. He said that he would not assign blame but he implored people over and over to read the report and then form their conclusions.

The fact that Clinton and the media keep saying that there was nothing new in the report are telling bald faced lies because there were several new facts uncovered and reported.
The report came about because even though others supposedly had investigated, there were quite a few questions that had never been asked and quite a few people who had never been questioned at all.

People have gotten so used to being lied to that they don't even seem to care about the truth anymore.

 

[Craig]

Gowdy did not say that there was no blame. He said that he would not assign blame but he implored people over and over to read the report and then form their conclusions.

The fact that Clinton and the media keep saying that there was nothing new in the report are telling bald faced lies because there were several new facts uncovered and reported.
The report came about because even though others supposedly had investigated, there were quite a few questions that had never been asked and quite a few people who had never been questioned at all.

People have gotten so used to being lied to that they don't even seem to care about the truth anymore.

My take is...after years of investigations...the summary is that no blame is assigned. How cowardly of Gowdy to tell others to read his 800 page report that could not, apparently, find anyone to assign "blame".

Spin it how you will...as always.

Yes...political lies are common. I find it fascinating that the right wing can focus, for years, on one lie, while they merrily ignore the thousands upon thousands of them spewed from the right.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Being the subject of a malicious,never-ending, scorched earth smear campaign/political witch-hunt is not a consequence?

She's a politician. All politicians get negative things said about them. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

I'm talking real consequences. Have there been any? Should there be?

 

[Zam-Zam]

You didn't mention Mrs Clinton? Right...you merely posted yet another post about Benghazi...and stated, quite clearly, that no one would take responsibility. Yet...there it is, right in front of you...Clinton, the Secretary of State during Benghazi, and the sole reason these investigations have continued...doesn't need to have her name bandied about when the position is so obvious.

Yes...stating one is responsible is taking responsibility. Some people simply refuse to see the words in front of them.

If all it takes to accept responsibility is to say so, then all it takes to be an an elephant is to say "I'm an elephant".

No sale.

 

[Craig]

If all it takes to accept responsibility is to say so, then all it takes to be an an elephant is to say "I'm an elephant".

No sale.

She stated she was responsible.

What you want is some sort of punishment.

 

[marvin martian]

Being the subject of a malicious,never-ending, scorched earth smear campaign/political witch-hunt is not a consequence?

No, especially when there is a cadre of eager propagandists who take on every challenge...almost as if they were being compensated to do so.

 

[marvin martian]

She stated she was responsible.

What you want is some sort of punishment.

Adults call that "consequences", not punishment. As in, consequences for one's actions, a concept seemingly foreign to the weasel class.

 

[Craig]

Adults call that "consequences", not punishment. As in, consequences for one's actions, a concept seemingly foreign to the weasel class.

The consequences have been stated...a years long, repeated, ongoing investigation that, once again, cannot "assign blame".

No...you want punishment.