Republican Report On Benghazi Indicates No Cover-Up

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/11/1276758/-This-one-revelation-in-the-bombshell-Benghazi-report-from-House-Republicans-will-stun-and-amaze-you

 

 

From the House Republicans' report:

 

 

"While the GOP lawmakers said that commanders could have pushed harder to position forces to respond to threats in North Africa in general and Libya in particular, they concluded that no U.S. military assets could have arrived in Benghazi in time to affect the outcome of the attack, according to committee staff members who briefed reporters on the report."

 

 

This news kinda sorta makes this a phony scandal, don't ya think?

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (26)

  1. proto-gnostic

    Now try and get one to admit it Lol

    February 13, 2014
  2. 29A

    True, it says there was no cover-up. However, Obama’s statement the following day does not call Benghazi a ‘terrorist attack’, you can’t find it – proof of which was Rice’s appearance on 5 news shows attributing the attack to a video. That Democrats refuse to recognize this, is, imo, sheer partisanship. Either the administration knew that it was a terrorist attack, but failed to disseminate that information to Rice, or the administration considered the attack to be caused by the video as Rice indicated.
    .
    dailykos is a bit behind the times, as the report was released January 15, 2014. It was a bi-partisan report, which also said, “the terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel at the Temporary Mission Facility and the Annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012, were likely preventable…”
    http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

    February 13, 2014
  3. killingtime

    This news kinda sorta makes this a phony scandal, don’t ya think?
    .
    Yes & no. It all depends on how you look at it. From a political standpoint (let’s get Obama), there’s nothing that he could have done at that moment. (Yea, Obama found not guilty).
    .
    The reality is that when not fighting a war the military spends time doing nothing more than planning. If this happens we will do that, etc.. They plan for ANYTHING that could possibly happen PLUS stuff that would never happen (because planning is both a learning & teaching process). I’m sure that somewhere there is a plan to attack (or repel an attack) on Luxemborg. Within that planning (or included in) are plans to support American personnel all around the words. Different military teams are on standby in central locations for responses to such things all over the world. It is standard procedure to do that & have been for many years.
    .
    Yet here we have an example where that didn’t happen. Why? Well either there was a change in procedures (which I kind of doubt) or someone dropped the ball. Obama? Of course not. He is the head of the military but so far removed from stuff like this that I doubt that he even knew that it was normal to have those teams. Now he could be blamed in the teams were there & they were waiting for an ok from him (which is a whole other problem & shouldn’t happen) but that didn’t happen. So with no teams in place the obvious answer (or at least the top 2 that come to mind) is 1. the government side wasn’t talking to the military (I doubt it) or 2. Somewhere in the military chain there was someone in charge that screwed up (I’m betting).
    .
    So to answer your question (about it being a phony scandal) I disagree. I don’t think that there is a political scandal (unless maybe the teams were cut back as a cost cutting measure & we have heard nothing about that & I assume we would have). I do however believe that there was & is a scandal in that someone some one dropped the ball & American’s lost their lives because of that. On top of that I would also wonder why weren’t there more American Military guards there in the first place? That was probably a political call (the military would have been tasked to supply them & they would have) & there was some blame there too.
    .
    Just the basic facts: We sent our people into a zone that we knew beforehand could be very dangerous without adequate protection, with no plan to get them out if they were threatened, & without a backup plan to rescue them if there was a problem. To me that pretty much constitutes the makings of a scandal. Political or military scandal, I don’t know which. Either way it goes though Obama (who I can’t stand) isn’t to blame.

    February 13, 2014
  4. killingtime

    I guess that I should also add something. Narrow minded idiots from both parties are ignoring the big issue here because they are trying to make political points. The big issue is that Americans who were serving their country died needlessly. That is the issue & that’s where the focus needs to be.

    February 13, 2014
  5. deaconjim

    My biggest problem with the reaction to Benghazi are the opponents of Obama who act like this kind of thing never happened before. Yes, our embassies need protection. They should have armed military 24/7, who shouldn’t have to wait for an order from above to defend the embassy. Didn’t we have an attack on an embassy with numerous casualties when there were Marines on guard, but without ammunition? How in hell do we let something like that happen? How can we station American civilians in a country where attacks are likely and not protect them? To me, that is the real scandal. Benghazi is not an isolated incident. All Americans should hang their heads in shame when these events take place, but no, we just want to say it was the other side’s fault, when the fact of the matter is, all of our elected officials are complicit.

    February 13, 2014
  6. EZWAYZ

    if phony, why hasn’t Obama told anyone where in the world he was?

    February 13, 2014
    1. deaconjim

      That matters because…?

      February 13, 2014
      1. EZWAYZ

        because Barry is an elected official and commander in chief (not to mention liar in chief) and this went down on his watch. After 9-11 it was reported where Pres. Bush was and what he was doing during the attack. What on earth makes Barry beyond accountability – besides his fellow democrats?

        February 13, 2014
        1. killingtime

          EZWAYZ here’s a bit of history for you. During D-Day nobody wanted to wake up Hitler to authorize freeing up the reserves to respond to the attack. Theater commanders didn’t have that authority. That gave us a lot of extra hours to secure the beach landing zones. We learned from that mistake. Military leaders have the authority to act without orders now days when they need to. As I said there were failures here & those need to be addressed. But as far as Obama it would have been just as big a failure IF he had to deal with this problem as the problem on how it was dealt with. Obama wasn’t in this loop nor should he have been. It’s all well & good to say that he was in control so it was his fault BUT the fact is that there is something called “span of control” & he didn’t & shouldn’t have had the span of control at this level.
          .
          Now if you want to call him a socialist, stupid bastard or whatever I’ll join in with you because I agree. But this issue wasn’t his fault. On the other hand he should be trying to find out who’s fault it was (& maybe he did). That part we don’t know because the military rarely discusses this type stuff.

          February 13, 2014
          1. EZWAYZ

            1) “Military leaders have the authority to act without orders now days when they need to.” and so tell me again why general Ham was relieved?
            .
            2) “Obama wasn’t in this loop nor should he have been.” FALSE. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee they first notified the president of the attack during a Sept. 11, 2012 meeting that began at 5 p.m. and ran for about 30 minutes. They also told the committee they did not talk to Obama or anyone else at the White House after that meeting.
            .
            See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wh-obama-called-hillary-night-benghazi-attack-more-six-hours-after-it-started#sthash.V3wL2zgm.dpuf
            .
            3) “span of control” regardless of the scandal we can rest assured Obama will (eventually) trot out and say, “I learned about this from the news just like you.” His administration withheld witnesses for as long as possible, still hasn’t “arrested” anyone in connection with it after assigning it to the FBI and has come down on whistle blowers and reporters.

            February 13, 2014
            1. killingtime

              Ham was probably relieved because of this. He didn’t set it up the way he should have.
              Obama was INFORMED. That doesn’t mean that he was involved when he should have been. For him to take charge of the situation when it was already too late wouldn’t have mattered. To be honest, because it was set up wrong in the beginning, it was too late by the time he head about it.
              As for what Obama said, it was a political statement. Bush or anybody would have probably said something very close.
              Again, I don’t blame Obama for this, although I blame him for a lot of just as serious stuff.

              February 14, 2014
          2. EZWAYZ

            President Barack Obama called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at approximately 10 p.m. on the night of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told CNSNews
            .
            The Associated Press confirmed to CNSNews.com that at 10:58 p.m. Eastern time that night, it ran a story quoting from Clinton’s statement linking the Benghazi attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” Also, FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, has reported that the State Department released Clinton’s statement “about 10:00 p.m.”—which is when Carney tells CNSNews.com Obama phoned Clinton.
            .
            The “film maker” went to jail. No one in the administration or state department was punished for their actions. Yeah I blame Obama.

            February 14, 2014
            1. killingtime

              EZ I get it. But it all comes down to “who do you send” & there weren’t any assets in place. I hate to say it but that sound like the military to me that there weren’t any assets to send. Now if the no assets was a result of budget cuts, then I might jump on the hate Obama bandwagon. But again nobody has said that & I “assume” that if the Rebubs could have they would have.
              I’ll add that if something like this isn’t agreed upon by all Obama haters (like me) then it should be considered a non issue by conservatives. Much like his birth certificate it’s a non issue. To keep pushing it hurts the whole movement & makes conservative look “weird”.

              February 14, 2014
          3. EZWAYZ

            we’ve had years of “non-issues” with Obama and the only thing that looks weird is continually folding like a house of cards at each scandal. the trouble with this one is that people died. someone was framed and imprisoned. this incident was connected to the chemical weapons given to al Qaeda in Syria which rhino’s like McCain and Graham supported. we’re in a war on terror and giving aid and comfort to the enemy IS treason.
            .
            we had assets in Libya. and not just the SF guarding the embassy in Tripoli. There were also british and french SF assets. The Benghazi compound was also used by british SF to stockpile weapons for ops.

            February 14, 2014
        2. deaconjim

          Okay, so no real reason, except you want to bash Obama. Forget the partisan crap, we should be impressing upon those we elected to take the steps necessary to make sure nothing like this happens again. Killingtime is right in saying the truth may already have been discovered. It would likely be classified and not made public, leaving the rest of us to rehash this among ourselves, since we would be in the dark.

          February 13, 2014
          1. EZWAYZ

            Obama makes himself look bad without any help from me. Its truly fascinating how you can have investigations without the cooperation of the white house and I don’t see any democrats trying to impress anything on Obama but do what you want, we got your back.

            February 13, 2014
  7. Neighsayer

    I have heard – from someone on here, way back when this Benghazi talk was still sort of fresh – that the lack of military support at the embassies was tracked back to spending cuts created and negotiated for by congress, This congress, whose entire raison d’etre is spending cuts, remember?

    February 14, 2014
    1. Neighsayer

      no, I think it was pretty recent, and specifically cuts to diplomatic operations . . . I don’t remember the citation, but I think it was livelonger who told us. I’m not sure on whose post, though, maybe his, maybe Brn2Bfree’s, probably something in USA Politics, a few months back now . . .

      Anybody remember?

      I’ll try to find it, but I don’t expect to succeed . . .

      February 14, 2014
      1. deaconjim

        An internet search turned up plenty of links to stories on diplomatic security budget cuts. I only looked at one, and it mentions for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, spending for diplomatic security was cut $371 million. The House of Representatives wanted deeper cuts, but for fiscal year 2011, House and Senate negotiators restored $88 million of cuts proposed by the House.

        February 14, 2014
    2. Neighsayer

      Here it is. That was painful.

      http://usapolitics.thoughts.com/posts/who-s-fooling-who

      February 14, 2014
      1. Neighsayer

        yeah, I guess . . . it wasn’t the most direct of connections. I saw another one of LL’s while searching for that, which said it was all about the parameters around the American presence in Libya. There were to be no “boots on the ground,” and also that there were CIA guys there that could have helped, had they been there officially and their presence wouldn’t have been an embarrassment (and then some hints about weapons running by those people . . . )

        February 14, 2014