Benghazi

[Night Strike]

There must be a reason people are currently standing on highway overpasses with Benghazi signs and waving US flags

I'm guessing they are the same people who have been demanding Obama be impeached ever since the Presidential Elections back in 2008.

More than 200 American citizens have lost their lives at US Embassies over the last two decades. There has been an effort to make this an Obama Scandal, along with the IRS and other events that have occurred in recent years, if conservatives could find a way to link the President to the destruction of Hurricane Sandy it would be a scandal too.

If there is no scandal surrounding the events of Benghazi, why were there so many CIA agents present at the time who are now being forced to take monthly polygraphs and possibly being moved around the country with fake names to keep them away from Congressional investigators? That doesn't sound like the most transparent administration in history.

[AndyDufresne]

Yeah, man, bro! Duuuuude!


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

Am I the only one who keeps up with legitimate news?

Groundswell: A Secret Tape Reveals How It Lobbied Boehner and Issa on Benghazi

Audio Emerges Proving Secret Conservative Organization Behind Benghazi “Scandal”

Not only have we known for months that this is just a stupid witch-hunt of a conspiracy supported by big dumb idiots, now we have the audio tape that reveals where these stupid conspiracy theories come from. Essentially, treasonous Conservative politicians lie and cheat and do whatever these "lobby" groups demand of them. There's your conspiracy theory. Some of the audio has been published, the rest will be released later with captions.

[rishaed]

J_B I laugh at your sources. How do either of them prove the Benghazi isn't a scandal?

[Juan_Bottom]

J_B I laugh at your sources. How do either of them prove the Benghazi isn't a scandal?

They don't prove that it's not a scandal.
The facts prove that it's not a scandal, I mean only hardcore Conservatives ever thought that there even was a scandal. Everyone else accepted that this has been just more terrible posturing by Congressional Republicans. Hillary Clinton, who was the Republican focus here, actually got somewhere around a +10 bump in her public popularity after testifying about it.

What the audio does show, is why Congressional Republicans were pushing Benghazi. And why Conservative media was pushing Benghazi. It was a losing issue for them, but they wouldn't stop. Now you know why they had behaved so irrationally, it's because they were following someone else's protocol.

[Dukasaur]

J_B I laugh at your sources. How do either of them prove the Benghazi isn't a scandal?

They don't prove that it's not a scandal.
The facts prove that it's not a scandal, I mean only hardcore Conservatives ever thought that there even was a scandal. Everyone else accepted that this has been just more terrible posturing by Congressional Republicans. Hillary Clinton, who was the Republican focus here, actually got somewhere around a +10 bump in her public popularity after testifying about it.

What the audio does show, is why Congressional Republicans were pushing Benghazi. And why Conservative media was pushing Benghazi. It was a losing issue for them, but they wouldn't stop. Now you know why they had behaved so irrationally, it's because they were following someone else's protocol.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Regardless of whatever axes there are to grind between the Repicrats and the Demlicans, how can it not be a scandal when a bunch of insurgents kill your people with weapons that you airlifted to them? Would it not at the very least show catastrophically bad judgement on your part for handing out weapons to the wrong people? I'm sorry if I'm just a simple truck driver, but this bears further explanation.

Furthermore, how can it not be a scandal to try to blame it on some silly Youtube video, instead of manning up and accepting responsibility?

Now, if you were to say that it's just as much as Repicrat scandal as a Demlican scandal, because both slug parties support the exact same catastrophically stupid foreign policy, then I could agree with you. But to try do deny that it's a scandal at all seems rather silly.

[Juan_Bottom]

I just don't think that anybody here has followed the testimony or anything. We had congressional hearings on this, where blame was accepted and explanations were given.
Now, I watched and followed because I was writing about it, but I don't feel like anybody really read what I wrote (people just read captions) or watched anything on tv about it. Everyone is aware that the Republican Party was caught editing emails to make this look like a scandal, but nobody seems to be aware of what Hillary Clinton's role actually was, or why Obama didn't send in the goddamn army. Let alone what weapons were possessed, or how, by the enemy.

[Night Strike]

Juan, let's assume that all this attention was truly playing politics and was not relevant to what happened in Benghazi. Why were dozens of CIA agents on the ground during the attack and why are those surviving agents now being moved all around the country under new names and be forced to take monthly polygraphs to ensure they aren't telling what happened to either Congress or the media?

[Juan_Bottom]

It is playing politics.

And you answered your own question. There were dozens of agents there, doing who knows what. Likely they were involved in running guns to Syria, or something shady like that. But why would there be so many trained agents there?
Because that's where their job was, but it does not exist anymore. Our diplomatic staff were moved to a new location, and our CIA employees were split up and sent to wherever there was a spot open. It makes no goddamn sense to make 25 new CIA jobs at another location so that you can keep all these agents together.

Why would they be questioned every month?

1) we don't have a real source on this
2) polygraph tests are fake, and I'm sure that field agents who work in hostile countrys would know that anyway
3) they were probably doing some pretty shady stuff in Libya, the kind of stuff you keep secret
4) since this whole "scandal" is just political bullsh*t anyway, maybe the polygraph tests are another Republican witch-hunt

I mean, if they were illegally running guns to Syrian Rebels, good for them. But why would you want to attack the administration for protecting that kind of secret? The kind of secret where we actually bring democracy to an oppressed people?

[Night Strike]

It is playing politics.

And you answered your own question. There were dozens of agents there, doing who knows what. Likely they were involved in running guns to Syria, or something shady like that. But why would there be so many trained agents there?
Because that's where their job was, but it does not exist anymore. Our diplomatic staff were moved to a new location, and our CIA employees were split up and sent to wherever there was a spot open. It makes no goddamn sense to make 25 new CIA jobs at another location so that you can keep all these agents together.

Why would they be questioned every month?

1) we don't have a real source on this
2) polygraph tests are fake, and I'm sure that field agents who work in hostile countrys would know that anyway
3) they were probably doing some pretty shady stuff in Libya, the kind of stuff you keep secret
4) since this whole "scandal" is just political bullsh*t anyway, maybe the polygraph tests are another Republican witch-hunt

I mean, if they were illegally running guns to Syrian Rebels, good for them. But why would you want to attack the administration for protecting that kind of secret? The kind of secret where we actually bring democracy to an oppressed people?

So if they were illegally running guns into Syria, that wouldn't count as a scandal and be deserving of an investigation in your book? Bearing in mind that we had already run guns into Libya, the same that were among the guns used to attack the same consulate.

[Juan_Bottom]

Let me ask you a question, do you love American history?

In the 1770s our American rebal force was illegally suplied with weapons from France, so that we might earn our freedom from a tyrannical king.

Why would that be good for us, but bad for Syria? Don't we, as "freedom loving" patriots have a duty to help the Syrian people to earn their freedom from a tyranical king? Should we not throw the rope back down the hole and help them to climb up like we did? Or are we just huge hypocrites? If our government sent guns to the rebals, then good for us.

[chang50]

Let me ask you a question, do you love American history?

In the 1770s our American rebal force was illegally suplied with weapons from France, so that we might earn our freedom from a tyrannical king.

Why would that be good for us, but bad for Syria? Don't we, as "freedom loving" patriots have a duty to help the Syrian people to earn their freedom from a tyranical king? Should we not throw the rope back down the hole and help them to climb up like we did? Or are we just huge hypocrites? If our government sent guns to the rebals, then good for us.

Exactly JB,the American revolution though entirely justified was illegal by the laws that operated at the time,funny how US conservatives like to overlook this inconvenient fact..

[Night Strike]

Let me ask you a question, do you love American history?

In the 1770s our American rebal force was illegally suplied with weapons from France, so that we might earn our freedom from a tyrannical king.

Why would that be good for us, but bad for Syria? Don't we, as "freedom loving" patriots have a duty to help the Syrian people to earn their freedom from a tyranical king? Should we not throw the rope back down the hole and help them to climb up like we did? Or are we just huge hypocrites? If our government sent guns to the rebals, then good for us.

Because as in Libya, the rebels are comprised of members of al-qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, both groups that will gladly use those weapons to turn around and both attack the US and replace the existing dictators with their own Shariah Law dictators.

[thegreekdog]

There must be a reason people are currently standing on highway overpasses with Benghazi signs and waving US flags

I'm guessing they are the same people who have been demanding Obama be impeached ever since the Presidential Elections back in 2008.

More than 200 American citizens have lost their lives at US Embassies over the last two decades. There has been an effort to make this an Obama Scandal, along with the IRS and other events that have occurred in recent years, if conservatives could find a way to link the President to the destruction of Hurricane Sandy it would be a scandal too.

I think you mean Hurricane Katrina.

Oh, sorry, wrong president and not conservatives. Sorry, carry on.

[Juan_Bottom]

Let me ask you a question, do you love American history?

In the 1770s our American rebal force was illegally suplied with weapons from France, so that we might earn our freedom from a tyrannical king.

Why would that be good for us, but bad for Syria? Don't we, as "freedom loving" patriots have a duty to help the Syrian people to earn their freedom from a tyranical king? Should we not throw the rope back down the hole and help them to climb up like we did? Or are we just huge hypocrites? If our government sent guns to the rebals, then good for us.

Because as in Libya, the rebels are comprised of members of al-qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, both groups that will gladly use those weapons to turn around and both attack the US and replace the existing dictators with their own Shariah Law dictators.

We didn't arm Al-Qaeda or the Muslim brotherhood in Libya, they intercepted and stole weapons that our allies shipped to Libya.

We don't have any confirmation that we were shipping weapons from Benghazi to Syrian rebels. This is just an assumption based off of a secret tip.

We are not just giving out scud missile launchers to anyone with a "FREE SYRIA" t-shirt. We control where our aid goes.

Whenever you have a proxy war as in Syria, you are always going to have fractured resistance forces. In Syria, our team is the secular and non-sectarian FSA, who are fighting against the Islamic militants as well as against the Syrian government. President Obama approved a plan by which the CIA will hand pick Syrian Rebels, train them, then send them back to Syria to fight with the FSA. Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing, and you're only going to see a handful of fighters trained overall.
But the heart of the matter is that Bashar Assad will eventually be removed from power, and we have a chance to decide who replaces him. The FSA kind of denigrated in it's fighting ability due to the fact that they were unarmed and waiting in refugee camps with civilians, but now we are working with their command to build them back up to strength. The EU has agreed to help them as well. We could sit on our ass and practice isolationism and pretend that we don't care what happens in Syria, but that could be just the way that al-Nusra seizes power and strengthens Syrian's ties with Iran and with Al-Qaeda. The FSA are clearly the good guys here; they defected rather than turn their weapons against civilians when they were ordered to, and the Islamic Militants hate them almost as much as they hate us.

[Juan_Bottom]

Let me ask you a question, do you love American history?

In the 1770s our American rebal force was illegally suplied with weapons from France, so that we might earn our freedom from a tyrannical king.

Why would that be good for us, but bad for Syria? Don't we, as "freedom loving" patriots have a duty to help the Syrian people to earn their freedom from a tyranical king? Should we not throw the rope back down the hole and help them to climb up like we did? Or are we just huge hypocrites? If our government sent guns to the rebals, then good for us.

Exactly JB,the American revolution though entirely justified was illegal by the laws that operated at the time,funny how US conservatives like to overlook this inconvenient fact..

Sweet.
Usually I just feel like I'm talking to myself.

[Woodruff]

Whenever you have a proxy war as in Syria, you are always going to have fractured resistance forces. In Syria, our team is the secular and non-sectarian FSA, who are fighting against the Islamic militants as well as against the Syrian government.

Why do we have a team there? We shouldn't have a team there.

[warmonger1981]

Juan_Bottom wrote :We control where our aid goes.

Funniest shit I heard in a long time.


Now what about Israel attacking Russian arm depots inside Syria or Israel saying that if Russia delivers a missile defense system they will attack. Or hezbollah supplying the Syria regime with weapons and people. Or refugees flooding Jordan and Lebenon making the economy shakey. Do you think Russia will sit by while America carves up the middle east? Russia and China are the ones blocking the UN from invading while Europe sends weapons to rebels AKA al-qaeda or other people who want to kill us. Sound like the Afghan war all over again. Give them guns and money they kill us with that shit 10 years later

[Juan_Bottom]

Basically none of that is accurate.

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

Juan_Bottom wrote :We control where our aid goes.

Funniest shit I heard in a long time.

We are literally transporting a few dozen Syrian fighters at a time to Libya, training & arming them, then sending them back to Syria. We're not arming the entire goddamn FSA with Apache helicopters. The Obama plan calls for only a few hundred trained & armed fighters, and we're not even doing all the training.
Right now, The United States and Saudi Arabia will be donating heavier weapons & heavy weapons training,
yeah,
but the US isn't giving out anything that can harm our own military jets or tanks. Those weapons that we are donating are useless against our own military assets. Even the Saudi weapons are useless.

And again, we are only training FSA NON-SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY, PRO-WESTERN fighters. These are the guys who are fighting Assad, al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. Syria has historically been a non-sectarian safe haven for anyone of any faith. The FSA is made up of Christians and Muslims of different sects. The only guys these people hate more than Assad is the extremists. They want a Democratic-Socialist-type of government.

Now what about Israel attacking Russian arm depots inside Syria or Israel saying that if Russia delivers a missile defense system they will attack. Or hezbollah supplying the Syria regime with weapons and people. Or refugees flooding Jordan and Lebenon making the economy shakey. Do you think Russia will sit by while America carves up the middle east? Russia and China are the ones blocking the UN from invading while Europe sends weapons to rebels AKA al-qaeda or other people who want to kill us. Sound like the Afghan war all over again. Give them guns and money they kill us with that shit 10 years later

Russia and China have nothing to say about it.
They can block the UN Security council, and it's well and good that they should. They can even give weapons to Assad, whatever. But they cannot stop the combined support of Saudi Arabia and the United States. Right now we're about as limited on involvement as we can be, and that goes for the Saudi's as well. But Saudi Arabia has sole control over all of the word's oil prices, as they are not only the head of OPEC, but they also have an entire year's worth of GDP in cash reserves. That's trillions. No other OPEC nation has cash reserves like that. In the 90's, Saudi Arabia single-handedly destroyed Venezuela's economy for violating an OPEC decision. At that point, even the United States was powerless to help Venezuela, who violated the ruling to aid the US. The Saudi's can stop shipments of oil to any country, from any OPEC country, and it won't affect their own standard of living at all. If anyone goes against Saudi Arabia, they go against OPEC.
Israel as well, is a wild-card that Russia won't mess with. Israel is a small nation with a large security force that has proven in the past that it won't hesitate to pre-emptively attack any threat. All Russia can do is bark loudly. Because if Russia sends serious military aid, Israel will bomb the sh*t out of it, and Russia won't even be able to escalate the situation militarily, because Saudi Arabia will politically support the attack.

I don't believe that the EU has sent any weapons to any rebels yet, as the EU's arms embargo was allowed to expire August 1st 2013. The only European country to promise aid was France.
AND AGAIN I STRESS, we are arming the non-sectarian, PRO-DEMOCRACY, PRO-WESTERN FSA against President Assad and the Muslim Extremists. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, Assad is going to be ousted. By aiding the FSA we are ensuring that the good guys will be the ones to replace him, and not the fundamentalist extremists.
IN AFGHANISTAN, we armed the extremists in their Holy War against the Soviets. Here, we are doing the opposite. The FSA leaders are largely Western-Educated, and have no interest in a Sharia-Law state. Just because the area is predominately Muslim does not in any way mean that it's exactly the same as Afghanistan.

[thegreekdog]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that you should explore my butthole.

[oVo]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

This is excellent and should be discussed in depth as it is certainly
a topic with no shortage of experts here... and only an expert
can solve a problem.

Meanwhile someone should grease up a large oblong vegetable
for Juan's_Bottom to keep him occupied allowing this discussion
to proceed.

The Subject Line is: Benghazi - Massive Coverup... a couple hundred
people have been killed during attacks on US Embassies over the
last decade or so. This event is somehow more significant than the
previous fatalities because conservatives are grasping for anything
and everything that might possibly tarnish a President these so called
"Uber Patriots" don't want to accept as their "leader." The Democratic
process is only valid in their eyes when their so called agenda is met
and any progress this country makes needs to be made with "their"
leadership in place. Which makes all sniping, half truths and total BS
slung at the Oval Office legit, because that's how the GOP functions.

Eight years of unaccountability in Washington should be followed by
a transparent Presidency with as many road blocks put in place as
possible to hinder "change."

I don't remember any previous administrations where the Commander
in Chief was directly and individually responsible for all foreign embassy
security decisions or dispatches of Marines.

[Night Strike]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

This is excellent and should be discussed in depth as it is certainly
a topic with no shortage of experts here... and only an expert
can solve a problem.

Meanwhile someone should grease up a large oblong vegetable
for Juan's_Bottom to keep him occupied allowing this discussion
to proceed.

The Subject Line is: Benghazi - Massive Coverup... a couple hundred
people have been killed during attacks on US Embassies over the
last decade or so. This event is somehow more significant than the
previous fatalities because conservatives are grasping for anything
and everything that might possibly tarnish a President these so called
"Uber Patriots" don't want to accept as their "leader." The Democratic
process is only valid in their eyes when their so called agenda is met
and any progress this country makes needs to be made with "their"
leadership in place. Which makes all sniping, half truths and total BS
slung at the Oval Office legit, because that's how the GOP functions.

Eight years of unaccountability in Washington should be followed by
a transparent Presidency with as many road blocks put in place as
possible to hinder "change."

I don't remember any previous administrations where the Commander
in Chief was directly and individually responsible for all foreign embassy
security decisions or dispatches of Marines.

1) How many ambassadors were killed out of those couple of hundred people you said have been killed?

2) How many of those people were killed after a military general was specifically told to stand down rather than send in the requested aid? Such a stand down order can only come from the president. Why was that stand down order given?

3) How many of those other deaths were immediately blamed on an irrelevant internet video as well as mobs that never existed?

4) How many of those people who were killed did the Secretary of State say that their manner of death made no difference?

5) Why are potentially dozens of CIA agents who were on the ground during the attack being barred from talking to Congress and are facing unrivaled interrogations and forced relocations and name changes?

6) Why are these questions never answered and are instead ignored while claiming that the situation is just a "phony scandal"?

[oVo]

I suspect that most Embassy Attacks could have been handled better
and the bobbles of Benghazi seem to be partly caused by a rush
to supply news outlets answers before all facts were known.

The situation itself "may have been" mishandled due to faulty
real time information, but even that isn't certain at this point
in time.

All embassy attacks are investigated, but the results have never
been instantaneous. Benghazi wasn't and isn't being swept under
the rug, but the rush for answers was partially initiated by the
Presidential Election... and an opposition party looking for traction
against a formidable incumbent.

The expression "phony scandal" is a poor choice of words, though
it was being referred to as a scandal long before the investigation
had even begun, with "leaked facts" that are still in the process of
being verified. If the President did something stupid in connection
to the attacks I expect it to come out eventually. The unverified
"facts" and extrapolations all over facebook and conservative
anti-obama websites tend to be lame after awhile. Seems nobody
possesses the patience to wait for the facts and all are content to
report and post anything that supports their agenda, regardless
of the source.

[Juan_Bottom]

1) How many ambassadors were killed out of those couple of hundred people you said have been killed?

2) How many of those people were killed after a military general was specifically told to stand down rather than send in the requested aid? Such a stand down order can only come from the president. Why was that stand down order given?

3) How many of those other deaths were immediately blamed on an irrelevant internet video as well as mobs that never existed?

4) How many of those people who were killed did the Secretary of State say that their manner of death made no difference?

5) Why are potentially dozens of CIA agents who were on the ground during the attack being barred from talking to Congress and are facing unrivaled interrogations and forced relocations and name changes?

6) Why are these questions never answered and are instead ignored while claiming that the situation is just a "phony scandal"?

OMG I just cannot handle you repeating the same questions after they have been answered for you. You are literally the Wendy Wright of Benghazi.


Your side was caught:
EDITING WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENCE TO MAKE OBAMA LOOK GUILTY
BEING TOLD TO PUSH THIS AS A SCANDAL BY A CONSERVATIVE SHADOW GROUP
LYING LYING LYING

But to you, Obama is the bad guy, and the people caught lying are some sort of truth-seekers. Catch some scientist editing data for climate change, and that's proof that global warming is a hoax. Catch the Republican Party editing emails and that's proof that Clinton is a Succubus. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.


1) 7, five by terrorists and two by planecrash.

3) AS TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS, THE CONFUSION HAPPENED BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS HAD A LARGE GROUP OF YOUNG MEN SHOUTING AND PROTESTING ABOUT THE FILM IN FRONT OF THE EMBASSY BEFORE THE ATTACK. A LIBYAN DOCTOR OR GUARD WHO I DON'T EVEN CARE TO REMEMBER WITNESSED THE MOB AND IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE FOR THAT STORY. IT WAS PART OF THE TERRORIST'S ATTACK STRATEGY OF CONFUSION. IT WORKED SO WELL THAT YOU ARE STILL CONFUSED WHILE EVERYONE ELSE HAS MOVED ON.

4)
THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID. LYING LYING LYING.

5) I LITERALLY JUST ANSWERED THAT FOR YOU WHEN YOU LITERALLY JUST ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION.

6) BECAUSE OBAMA IS HITLER?
Not only have these questiones already been answered in this thread, there was this whole big thing at a place called "ongress" or "Kangress" or something like that, where all of your stupid questions were asked by lying "pablotechnitions" or something like that, AND ANSWERED BY HILLARY F*CKING CLINTON.
LITERALLY
ALL
OF
YOUR
BULLSHIT
WAS
DEALT
WITH
AND
HILLARY
CLINTON
GOT
A
10 POINT
BOOST
IN
PUBLIC
OPINION
POLLS
LITERALLY