The Benghazi Scandal Hearings

[UNT90]

I heard that when Petreus testified the real truth would come out.

I heard that when Clinton testified the real truth would come out.

There have now been nine Congressional hearings...none of which have produced even an iota of evidence of cover-up or the ridiculous notion that the President of the United States of America allowed Americans to die for political gain...so once these hearings produce much the same, we're probably in store for at least another half-dozen until someone says something that can even remotely be woven into and support the pre-conceived narrative created by people far less concerned with understanding the events of Benghazi and learning from them than villainizing an administration they abhor.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-111305929.html?vp=1

And it's not so much that Pres. Obama "let Amerocans die for political gain," it's that he covered up a terrorist attack after the fact for political gain.

It's becoming crystal clear that absolutely happened through testimony and other documents released through these hearings. .

[FirefightnRick]

There have now been nine Congressional hearings...none of which have produced even an iota of evidence of cover-up....

"Secret email reveals top official told Libya's U.S. Abmassador that terrorists were behind Benghazi attack - four days BEFORE U.S. Ambassador to UN said it was a spontaneous attack"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321470/Secret-email-reveals-official-told-Libyas-U-S-Abmassador-terrorists-Benghazi-attack--days-BEFORE-U-S-Ambassador-UN-said-spontaneous-attack.html

If this isn't a cover up then what do you call it, a terrible misunderstanding?

Rick

Edited May 10, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[GrayEagle]

I heard that when Petreus testified the real truth would come out.

I heard that when Clinton testified the real truth would come out.

There have now been nine Congressional hearings...none of which have produced even an iota of evidence of cover-up or the ridiculous notion that the President of the United States of America allowed Americans to die for political gain...so once these hearings produce much the same, we're probably in store for at least another half-dozen until someone says something that can even remotely be woven into and support the pre-conceived narrative created by people far less concerned with understanding the events of Benghazi and learning from them than villainizing an administration they abhor.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Patreus and Clinton have both resigned to keep from testifying. Petraeus suddenly admitted to infidelity and Clinton had a phantom fall. These were just unfortunate coincidences.

What did you not understand about the Hicks testimony? There will never be absolute proof that Obama had any major part in the coverup because he will never admit and neither will any of his underlings if they know what's good for them. They either lie outright (the video) or refuse to answer. If anyone should answer they would be ousted from their position and be pressured with tax investigations and background checks. This is perhaps the most vindictive administration in our history in my opinion. Unless some investigative reporter (and there are none in the liberal media to police itself) can provide proof of a coverup the complete timeline or any facts as to who knew what when will never be known.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Shocking. A president lying after a f*ck up by he and his appointees cause loss of life. That has never been done before. Obama is no different than the rest - he lies to get elected, doesn't know what to do about anything, and lies about all of it.

Our last four presidents have sucked big time. And, when you look at both fields shaping up for 2016, it looks like nothing but more suck ahead.

[mattmartin817]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Patreus and Clinton have both resigned to keep from testifying. Petraeus suddenly admitted to infidelity and Clinton had a phantom fall. These were just unfortunate coincidences.

What did you not understand about the Hicks testimony? There will never be absolute proof that Obama had any major part in the coverup because he will never admit and neither will any of his underlings if they know what's good for them. They either lie outright (the video) or refuse to answer. If anyone should answer they would be ousted from their position and be pressured with tax investigations and background checks. This is perhaps the most vindictive administration in our history in my opinion. Unless some investigative reporter (and there are none in the liberal media to police itself) can provide proof of a coverup the complete timeline or any facts as to who knew what when will never be known.

Not sure if joking or not? Clinton and Patraues both testified. Clinton resigned because even three years ago she said she would only do this job for one term. Patreus resigned because he got caught having an affair.

[UNT90]

Not sure if joking or not? Clinton and Patraues both testified. Clinton resigned because even three years ago she said she would only do this job for one term. Patreus resigned because he got caught having an affair.

Clinton resigned to organize her run for president in 2016.

Hopefully, this scandal makes her candidacy void before it starts.

But I doubt it.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

This should be bigger than Watergate. I mean, people actuially died, after all.

But it won't be, because Pres. Obama is a liberal democrat, and the media will do everything possible to protect someone who thinks as they think.

.

Let us not forget the Marine Barracks in Lebanon during Reagan administration. .. 100's died. People make mistakes... it should have been better protected in a very dangerous area... but it wasn't. I don't remember the other party going nuts politically.

[UNT90]

.

Let us not forget the Marine Barracks in Lebanon during Reagan administration. .. 100's died. People make mistakes... it should have been better protected in a very dangerous area... but it wasn't. I don't remember the other party going nuts politically.

And I don't remember Pees. Reagan lying about the cause in order to get re-elected.

For a supposed one-time conservative, you seem to jump to Pres. Obama's defense at every turn, even when what he did was indefensible.

[mattmartin817]

Can we just have one topic that doesn't evolve into you two guys getting into a pissing match about who is and isn't a conservative? I appreciate you guys' view points but the whole "I'm a conservative", "no you're not" dance you guys do has become a complete beating.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--My point was... not every screw up or bit of bad information in early stages ... should be considered political or even a lie..... EVERY President has had situations that they wish they could do-over again... Pearl Harbor, 9-11, and many, many more... quit yelling politics every-time something happens ... People are not perfect (as you seem to think you are) Every news (or whatever) report in early stages is suspect as well and usually contains errors.... Sometimes what you think you see or hear is not what happened . Doubt this ....go ask any lawyer about eye-witnesses and how reliable they are and how accurate their info is (son is a lawyer).

When I was at NT, a prof talked about an incident that had happened in a class (history I think and discussing accuracy of reports). A gunman runs in a class, fake shoots the prof (said bang a few times), who then falls behind the desk and the gunman runs out. Then the class had to write a report describing what happened... some even included the type of gun, and number of bangs ( it was actually a brown banana).. The reports were widely different and all saw the same thing. [ thank goodness no student had the right to carry a gun and shot him ] Early reports are often bad and flawed. I have heard Baylor Law School had done a similar thing in a class about eye witness reliability. This stunt might not be a good idea in today's world.

Edited May 10, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

--My point was... not every screw up or bit of bad information in early stages ... should be considered political or even a lie..... EVERY President has had situations that they wish they could do-over again... Pearl Harbor, 9-11, and many, many more... quit yelling politics every-time something happens ... People are not perfect (as you seem to think you are) Every news (or whatever) report in early stages is suspect as well and usually contains errors.... Sometimes what you think you see or hear is not what happened . Doubt this ....go ask any lawyer about eye-witnesses and how reliable they are and how accurate their info is (son is a lawyer).

When I was at NT, a prof talked about an incident that had happened in a class (history I think and discussing accuracy of reports). A gunman runs in a class, fake shoots the prof (said bang a few times), who then falls behind the desk and the gunman runs out. Then the class had to write a report describing what happened... some even included the type of gun, and number of bangs ( it was actually a brown banana).. The reports were widely different and all saw the same thing. [ thank goodness no student had the right to carry a gun and shot him ] Early reports are often bad and flawed. I have heard Baylor Law School had done a similar thing in a class about eye witness reliability. This stunt might not be a good idea in today's world.

Guess what. Not one witness has testified that ANYONE was protesting a dumb movie. Not one.

The administration made that up so they wouldn't be inconvenienced with having to deal with a terror attack, both politically and practically.

Funny you have this position now, but were "outraged" at Pres. G.W. Bush for Iraq.

At least GWB didn't continue to insist that WMDs existed 6 months after he knew they didn't.

[GreenBat]

More FACTS

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/politics/benghazi-debate-focuses-on-interpretation-of-early-e-mail-on-attackers.html?ref=politics&_r=3&

[oldguystudent]

I don't want to discount whatever happened in Benghazi, but to spin it like it's exclusive to this administration is a bit far fetched.

Very partisan link, but one that I think raises a valid point.

Edited May 10, 2013 by oldguystudent

[GreenBat]

More facts

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

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Guess what. Not one witness has testified that ANYONE was protesting a dumb movie. Not one.

The administration made that up so they wouldn't be inconvenienced with having to deal with a terror attack, both politically and practically.

Funny you have this position now, but were "outraged" at Pres. G.W. Bush for Iraq.

At least GWB didn't continue to insist that WMDs existed 6 months after he knew they didn't.

..

Guess what. Not one witness has testified that ANYONE was protesting a dumb movie. Not one.

movie??

[adman]

And I don't remember Pees. Reagan lying about the cause in order to get re-elected.

For a supposed one-time conservative, you seem to jump to Pres. Obama's defense at every turn, even when what he did was indefensible.

Probably not the best idea to bring up President Reagan and the veracity of his character. *Iran*cough*Contra*cough*

Edited May 11, 2013 by adman

[UNT90]

..

Guess what. Not one witness has testified that ANYONE was protesting a dumb movie. Not one.

movie??

Exactly, yet those were the talking points immediately after the event and continued until after the election.

Even though the administration knew it was a bald face lie.

But that's ok, because everyone does it, right?

[All About UNT]

If any of you think this election hinged on the White House's spin on Benghazi debacle you need to pull your head out of the clouds.

[UNTLifer]

If any of you think this election hinged on the White House's spin on Benghazi debacle you need to pull your head out of the clouds.

What?

[UNT90]

If any of you think this election hinged on the White House's spin on Benghazi debacle you need to pull your head out of the clouds.

Probably not, but it's clear the administration wasn't going to take any chances.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool that no one had at the time.

Edited May 12, 2013 by UNT90

[KRAM1]

Probably not, but it's clear the administration wasn't going to take any chances.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool that no one had at the time.

I cannot believe that by now you have not found some way to blame this on Benford!

[UNT90]

I cannot believe that by now you have not found some way to blame this on Benford!

Wrong forum, my friend.

[KRAM1]

Wrong forum, my friend

Says he of the "let me get a dig in at Benford" in every post I make and in any forum fames. I think we have the ultimate example of "pot calling the kettle black" here. Too funny!

[Green P1]

I don't believe Benford would have been able to pull a cover up like this off.

[Green P1]

I don't believe Benford would have been able to pull a cover up like this off.

I take that back. Maybe if it was the end of the season and that pesky right-wing media had nothing to gain by reporting on it.... Maybe then he might be able to pull off a cover up we could all be proud of.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Green P1