Trey Gowdy Demands Answers On Benghazi

[UncleBeer 244]

What is the base accusation? That we were lax in security and should have seen it coming? That we wanted it to happen? I don't get what people think the conspiracy is.. The administration had nothing to gain by having a diplomat pulled form an embassy and humiliatingly killed.. so we are left with a possible cover up of not taking a threat seriously.. .That is not something that would have me aghast at the behavior of the government, it's a "live-and-learn" moment.

I may be missing something.. If so please educate me... I don't see how knowing where Obama was when an attack was taking place on the other side of the planet is relevant.

This has been covered in this thread.

Turns out the preznit was engaged in the vital task of debate prep, and couldn't be bothered to wander all the way down to the situation room to deal with the Benghazi crisis.

But more importantly:

The latest emails show the preznit's advisors madly spinning; doing whatever, saying whatever was necessary to prevent these Americans deaths from looking exactly like what they were: a "broader failure of policy". And since this was right before the general election and since the preznit had continually brayed about how he'd beaten back the Islamofascists, the story of Islamic terror against American interests had to be quelled ASAP. Thus was born the cockamamie story of "internet video causes spontaneous murders", which was flogged ad nauseum on the Sunday news shows.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The base accusation is a cover-up that eight Congressional panels have thus far failed to substantiate. This ninth panel will bering out all the answers, though. And if it fails do so before November, then there will be a tenth panel that will get the job done. It's kind of like the Obamacare repeal votes. They had 50+ already and the law still stands. As they admitted on the latter more than once, it's not so much about the actual repeal (which they know they can't accomplish), it's about the political message. Same with the Benghazi kangaroo court that they're now starting. It won't bring into existence that which doesn't exist (the cover-up) but it makes for good politics ahead of the November election. It's all about firing up the base.

[rlogan 2,036]

What is the base accusation? That we were lax in security and should have seen it coming? That we wanted it to happen? I don't get what people think the conspiracy is.. The administration had nothing to gain by having a diplomat pulled form an embassy and humiliatingly killed.. so we are left with a possible cover up of not taking a threat seriously.. .That is not something that would have me aghast at the behavior of the government, it's a "live-and-learn" moment.

I may be missing something.. If so please educate me... I don't see how knowing where Obama was when an attack was taking place on the other side of the planet is relevant.

No, the question is what Stevens was up to in terms of providing weapons and logistical support to Al Qaeda linked terrorists in fomenting wider "Creative Destruction" in the middle east. Qadaffi was ridiculed for saying the USA was backing Al Qaeda linked groups in order to overthrow him, and that was just fact of the matter. Benghazi was the number one source for foreign Jihadi suicide bombers in Iraq. Obama's war to overthrow Qadaffi had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Libyan people and everything to do with our continuing disaster of foreign policy in the Middle East.

Al Qaeda is thrilled for us to provide air cover for them and place a country full of high quality oil in their hands. But that doesn't mean we can trust them or that they will happily fulfill our fantasies for the New American Century. Had the administration, coming into an election, been accountable for getting what we deserve in allying ourselves with Al Qaeda then they would have lost the election.

But the problem for us as citizens is that both the Democrats and Republicans are in the back pockets of the money powers: the military-industrial-security-financial complex. Having Obama lose the election would have made no difference in terms of our historically insane foreign policy.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, the question is what Stevens was up to in terms of providing weapons and logistical support to Al Qaeda linked terrorists in fomenting wider "Creative Destruction" in the middle east. Qadaffi was ridiculed for saying the USA was backing Al Qaeda linked groups in order to overthrow him, and that was just fact of the matter. Benghazi was the number one source for foreign Jihadi suicide bombers in Iraq. Obama's war to overthrow Qadaffi had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Libyan people and everything to do with our continuing disaster of foreign policy in the Middle East.

Al Qaeda is thrilled for us to provide air cover for them and place a country full of high quality oil in their hands. But that doesn't mean we can trust them or that they will happily fulfill our fantasies for the New American Century. Had the administration, coming into an election, been accountable for getting what we deserve in allying ourselves with Al Qaeda then they would have lost the election.

But the problem for us as citizens is that both the Democrats and Republicans are in the back pockets of the money powers: the military-industrial-security-financial complex. Having Obama lose the election would have made no difference in terms of our historically insane foreign policy.

This is most certainly true.

[Darnell 8,479]

Why doesn't the CIA supply more cat pizza to the residents of Benghazi?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, the question is what Stevens was up to in terms of providing weapons and logistical support to Al Qaeda linked terrorists in fomenting wider "Creative Destruction" in the middle east. Qadaffi was ridiculed for saying the USA was backing Al Qaeda linked groups in order to overthrow him, and that was just fact of the matter. Benghazi was the number one source for foreign Jihadi suicide bombers in Iraq. Obama's war to overthrow Qadaffi had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Libyan people and everything to do with our continuing disaster of foreign policy in the Middle East.

Al Qaeda is thrilled for us to provide air cover for them and place a country full of high quality oil in their hands. But that doesn't mean we can trust them or that they will happily fulfill our fantasies for the New American Century. Had the administration, coming into an election, been accountable for getting what we deserve in allying ourselves with Al Qaeda then they would have lost the election.

But the problem for us as citizens is that both the Democrats and Republicans are in the back pockets of the money powers: the military-industrial-security-financial complex. Having Obama lose the election would have made no difference in terms of our historically insane foreign policy.

Reagan did it also

Wait for it wait for it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is most certainly true.

It is, not that anyone can convince this lot of that. Those with the tribal mindset seem to see Messiahs at every election.

[UncleBeer 244]

Having Obama lose the election would have made no difference in terms of our historically insane foreign policy.

They said if I voted for Romney, the preznit would abuse the War Powers Act. And they were right!

[UncleBeer 244]

The base accusation is a cover-up that eight Congressional panels have thus far failed to substantiate. This ninth panel will bering out all the answers

The ninth panel was necessary because Congress subpoenaed the State Dept. almost a year ago to find out what happened that night, since the "internet video = murder" story didn't pass any test of rational credibility. Almost a year down the road, the "most transparent administration ... evaaah" is finally being forced by the judiciary to produce information.

Surely asking questions of our employees shouldn't present a problem. Right?

[UncleBeer 244]

So where was the president

A good piece by Marc Thiessen in WaPo:

What was President Obama doing during the eight hours that the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was under attack? Amazingly, we still do not know 20 months later.

But there is an easy way to find out — just ask the White House diarist.

When trying to keep track of the president’s time, most observers look at “WAVE records” (the White House visitors log listing everyone who enters the White House complex) and the “President’s Public Schedule” (which selectively lists the president’s public activities). But there is another document that meticulously records all the president’s activities, public and private, every second of every day. It is called the “President’s Daily Diary.”

Just outside the Oval Office is a room called the Outer Oval, where the president’s secretary and personal aide sit and through which all visitors coming to see the president pass. Staff members in the Outer Oval keep track of the president’s location at all times. They carefully record the names of all individuals who walk into the Oval Office — when they entered, how long they stayed, what the topic of discussion was. They keep a record of all calls made and received by the president, including the topic, participants and duration. They even record the president’s bathroom breaks (they write “evacuating” into the log).

This and other data on the presidents’ whereabouts are collected by a career National Archives employee whose title is White House diarist. This individual preserves them as a minute-by-minute historical record of the presidency for future use by presidential scholars.

What this means is that there exists a minute-by-minute record of where the president was and what he was doing for all eight hours of the Benghazi attack.

So how is it that the White House has failed to give a full account of the president’s whereabouts during that eight-hour period? The White House knows precisely where he was and what he was doing, yet it is refusing to share that information with Congress and the American people. This is unacceptable. Imagine if 20 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush White House had still refused to account for where the president was or what he was doing that day. There would be outrage and constant demands from the press, Congress and other investigators demanding to know the answer to a simple factual question: Where was the president?

The new congressional select committee on Benghazi should subpoena the “President’s Daily Diary” and call the White House diarist to testify before the committee. There is precedent for doing so. In 1998, the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affairquestioned White House diarist Ellen McCathran. Moreover, the “President’s Daily Diary” is not a classified document. It eventually becomes a publicly available record. There is no reason to withhold it from Congress.

Americans have a right to know where their president was while a terrorist attack was taking place — and the daily diary will provide that information. There will be a record if Obama held a secure video teleconference (SVTC) with his military commanders in the region or even spoke with them by phone. There will be a record if he met or spoke with his national security adviser to discuss the unfolding attack, and how many times he did so. If properly kept, the logs will show precisely what Obama was doing — whether he was carefully monitoring events on the ground or was otherwise occupied.

What else might the commander in chief have been doing? There has been speculation that Obama held a campaign debate prep session as the Benghazi attack was unfolding. TheWhite House visitors log shows that three individuals — Michael Donilon, David Ginsberg, and Ron Klain — entered the White House on September 11, 2012 for “debate prep.” The record notes “3 meet with Potus NO TIME LISTED 9/11/12.” The “President’s Daily Diary” will tell us whether the president attended this meeting and what time it took place.

The White House eagerly shared details of the president’s whereabouts during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, even releasing a photo of him monitoring the assault in the Situation Room in real time. So why not share the same details about his whereabouts during Benghazi?

During Watergate, Richard Nixon had his infamous 18 1 / 2-minute gap. When it comes to Benghazi, Obama has an eight-hour gap. That gap needs to be closed.

If Obama has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear.

[Peikko 1,575]

The sky if falling, the sky is falling. Don the tinfoil hats!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The ninth panel was necessary because Congress subpoenaed the State Dept. almost a year ago to find out what happened that night, since the "internet video = murder" story didn't pass any test of rational credibility. Almost a year down the road, the "most transparent administration ... evaaah" is finally being forced by the judiciary to produce information.

Surely asking questions of our employees shouldn't present a problem. Right?

It's a dog and pony show for you and yours. That's all it is and all it'll ever be. Just like the 50+ useless votes to repeal Obamacare. But hey, I'm glad to see you're excited. That means that the Republicans are accomplishing the single goal of this exercise - to whip up the right wingers (not that they need a lot of whipping up these days). You people are really low maintenance and quite easy to please. One can't help but wonder: What would Republicans do if their base actually started thinking a little?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

A good piece by Marc Thiessen in WaPo:

I am with you. Whats the big deal. Just tell where he was. It's like Nixon, it's the cover up that is the problem

Some here say it's a manufactured scandal. well then produce what is asked for, stop covering up and prove it.

If it is a political motivated, then prove it and embarrass the Republicans. Why hide and stonewall

[Peikko 1,575]

I am with you. Whats the big deal. Just tell where he was. It's like Nixon, it's the cover up that is the problem

Some here say it's a manufactured scandal. well then produce what is asked for, stop covering up and prove it.

If it is a political motivated, then prove it and embarrass the Republicans. Why hide and stonewall

Why should the government be required to waste time and resources proving a non problem? it's the same with the 'birth certificate' #######. No one needs to prove something when there is nothing to prove. Pandering to this nonsense is unacceptable and I am glad they are resisting doing so.

[rlogan 2,036]

Why should the government be required to waste time and resources proving a non problem? it's the same with the 'birth certificate' #######. No one needs to prove something when there is nothing to prove. Pandering to this nonsense is unacceptable and I am glad they are resisting doing so.

Apparently you never learned that our system has multiple checks and balances, including the DUTY of congress to exercise oversight on the executive branch.

Dictatorships "waste" no time and resources on silly things like oversight. Answering Congressional subpoenas is not "pandering". It is following the law, whereas not doing so is a crime. You are glad we have criminals running the country, apparently. Had they turned over what has been requested this would have been over loooooong ago.