Quantcast

Right Wing Desperation To Manufacture A Benghazi Scandal Grows More Pathetic

ProudProgressive 2013/05/06 01:31:07
The growing desperation of the Republican party to try to manufacture a scandal over the tragic attack in Benghazi last September is getting to be truly entertaining. We already know that there weren't any lies, wasn't any coverup, no one gave orders to stand down, no one at the White House watched the attack live, and no one was relieved of duty as a result of Benghazi. But when has the Right Wing ever let actual reality get in the way of a good witch hunt? Are they really so desperate that they think anyone would believe there was a coverup when there was nothing to cover up? Apparently so.

Article excerpt follows:

Issa's "New" Info on Benghazi? Speculation from Diplomat Not Present
By Nicole Belle
May 05, 2013

The Republicans are determined not to let their trumped up, clearly partisan-based outrage on the attack on the Benghazi consulate go down the memory hole, like so many of the Republican failures of the last dozen years. Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Rep Darrell Issa promised brand new information to CBS News on Benghazi attack.

So the CBS News breathlessly brings on Issa to deliver this new information which will implicate the Obama administration in this great conspiracy that will no doubt bring the presidency down.

Except...

This great new information? It's testimony from US deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks. The problem? Hicks wasn't in Benghazi at the time of the attacks and has no actual idea what happened. Everything he testified about was his suppositions based on reports. The same reports that have issued forth in the months after the attack.

"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens - then the U.S. ambassador to Libya - and three other Americans.

When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American officials were saying in public - and on "Face the Nation" - just five days after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to discrepancies among the administration's reaction to the attack, which The Weekly Standard suggests was frayed by ever-evolving talking points that sought to remove references to al Qaeda.

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had "no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined."

"For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens's front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable," he said. "I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris - Chris's last report, if you want to say his final report - is, 'Greg, we are under attack.'

"...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. "The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn't know what he's talking about. ....My jaw hit the floor as I watched this."

Though the White House has said it was in contact with officials in Libya the night of the attack, Hicks said in the days following, he was never consulted about the talking points. One day after Rice's Sunday show blitz, Hicks said he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, and asked, "Why did Amb. Rice say that?" The tone of her answer - "I don't know," he said - indicated that "I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked."

The net impact of Rice's statements, Hicks said, was "immeasurable." On top of his personal belief that "the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows," he said, Magariaf lost face "in front of not only his own people, but the world" at a time of democratic transition in his country. He added, "I have heard from a friend who had dinner with President Magariaf in New York City that he was still angry at Amb. Rice well after the incident."


Notice anything particularly evidentiary about Hicks' testimony? It's "unbelievable" that Stevens didn't call in a demonstration? Rice's statements have caused "immeasurable" damage? Um, hearsay anyone? Why is Hicks' opinion any more compelling than anyone else not actually there?

You know what I noticed didn't get mentioned in Schieffer's interview of Issa? The seven other attacks on US consulates between the years of 2002 and 2008 that haven't got Republicans' collective knickers in a bunch:

Benghazi was not unique. There have been eights attacks on six different U.S. consulates in and around the Mideast since the 9/11 attack. They include:

Karachi, Pakistan, 2002, 2003, and 2006
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2002
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2004
Damascus, Syria, 2006
Sana'a, Yemen, 2008
Benghazi, Libya, 2012


And what role Congress itself played:

Congress also shares a portion of the blame for the fate of Ambassador Stevens and the three others killed:

The State Department is still reeling from deep cuts made by Senate and House appropriations panels to the Obama administration's budget requests for next year, with some officials warning of national security risks. (2011-10-01)

The quote seems particular damning, but read the whole article. There was an 22% across the board cut, but a separate request for spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan was approved. Including the separate request the State Department budget was still down $3.5 billion from the prior year, a very short sighted move given that Arab Spring was only ten months old at the time the decision was made.

Three autocratic governments blown away, two countries sliding into sectarian conflict, two others facing massive protests, and four that were compeled to introduce reforms by their restive population. And the response from Congress to this seismic shift? Budget cuts.


But yes, let's all wring our hands over Gregory Hicks' feelings and assumptions. It's so much easier than taking an honest look at Benghazi.

Read More: http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/issas-new-i...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • ☆astac☆~PWCM 2013/05/06 06:57:18
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    +46
    Wow, the proud progressives are really getting desperate now.
    Come on, only you die hard Obama supporters really thought the attack was because of some unknown video that no one ever saw. Sorry, but obama and Hillary really are guilty of murder. And rice is just a screaming idiot for lying about this.

    vsdfv

    utut
    obama benghazi

    obama benghazi

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • HOMBRE John 2013/05/17 22:21:09
  • HOMBRE John 2013/05/17 22:20:49
  • shadow76 HOMBRE 2013/05/19 09:54:27
    shadow76
    That is so ugly the head is a little small!
  • HOMBRE John 2013/05/17 22:20:18
  • John HOMBRE 2013/05/18 14:30:56
  • jeane 2013/05/09 02:24:31
    jeane
    +6
    Time to FIRE THE LIARS!

    Obama and Hillary left our people to die. ABANDONED IN BENGHAZI ABANDONED IN BENGHAZI
  • Mel the... jeane 2013/05/09 02:59:14
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    +4
    Absolutly!!!
  • John jeane 2013/05/09 19:17:08
  • jeane John 2013/05/10 16:35:02
    jeane
    +5
    YOUR DIVERSION ISN'T WORKING.
  • John jeane 2013/05/10 16:42:52
  • jeane John 2013/05/10 16:49:24
    jeane
    +4
    Diversion back to the BUSH did it stuff.
  • John jeane 2013/05/10 17:03:17
  • jeane John 2013/05/10 17:04:18
    jeane
    +4
    I did not vote for George but my respect for him grows after seeing what we have now.
  • John jeane 2013/05/10 17:08:04
  • Mel the... John 2013/05/12 16:30:03 (edited)
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    +1
    brainless democrat woman brainless democrat woman

    Ugly and Dumb..Democrat women
  • John Mel the... 2013/05/13 18:54:19
  • Mel the... John 2013/05/13 19:04:38
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    Sure you would know lots about stupidity
  • John Mel the... 2013/05/13 19:32:29
  • Mel the... John 2013/05/13 19:38:28
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Johnny, My Cat sports higher cognitive skills than you do...
  • John Mel the... 2013/05/13 23:25:20
  • shadow76 Mel the... 2013/05/17 11:57:41
    shadow76
    +1
    Major Haha!
  • shadow76 Mel the... 2013/05/17 11:56:09
    shadow76
    +1
    Hahaha!
  • shadow76 John 2013/05/17 11:55:16
    shadow76
    You should get help for your Bush-Cheney derangement syndrome!
  • John shadow76 2013/05/17 15:41:36
  • shadow76 John 2013/05/17 22:19:30
    shadow76
    Are you sure your name isn't B. Hussien? Cheating to win is Cheating.
  • Mel the... John 2013/05/12 16:28:11
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Yes Bama did ****** us all, and you are still supporting the criminal bama
  • John Mel the... 2013/05/13 18:56:02
  • Mel the... John 2013/05/13 19:11:17 (edited)
  • John Mel the... 2013/05/17 15:48:24
  • shadow76 John 2013/05/17 11:53:05
    shadow76
    How would it have helped anything any sooner?
  • J.M. Prhys 2013/05/07 22:32:09
    J.M. Prhys
    +4
    Obama replaced General Ham of Africom because he wanted to send assistance to the embassy. Obama left and couldn't be found. The next morning he flew to Los Vegas to campaign. Obama and Hillary insisted that the attack was retaliation for a YouTube video, directly contradicting the Libyan president who immediately stated that it was a terrorist attack. Are you on the payroll?
  • CommieHunter - AFCL- PWCM 2013/05/07 10:29:39
    CommieHunter - AFCL- PWCM
    +4
    Hey PP, If you can read this & show me ONE LIE, in it, JUST ONE anywhere, I'll personally pay for you to go to Washington DC & meet "your" Marxist president Mr Obama, before he is impeached & removed from office.

    Copyright © Douglas Hagmann

    BENGHAZI, A MOSAIC OF LIES
    According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

    Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking p...







































    &

    &
    Hey PP, If you can read this & show me ONE LIE, in it, JUST ONE anywhere, I'll personally pay for you to go to Washington DC & meet "your" Marxist president Mr Obama, before he is impeached & removed from office.

    Copyright © Douglas Hagmann

    BENGHAZI, A MOSAIC OF LIES
    According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

    Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

    First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

    Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.

    Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.

    The Turkish Warning

    According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

    It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

    The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?

    A Nation/State sponsored attack?
    While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

    Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?

    Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.

    Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

    As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?

    As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.

    Fallout

    From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.

    Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.

    It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.

    To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”

    Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
    Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.

    Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
    (more)
  • John CommieH... 2013/05/10 16:57:47
  • Mel the... John 2013/05/12 16:31:30
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    Laughing be cause he as stupid people like left wingers following him..
  • John Mel the... 2013/05/13 19:00:10
  • robert 2013/05/07 02:29:51
    robert
    +5
    So pee pee man ,, you seem to be the main one on SH,, who's spinning you deceitful lies,, sure looks like pure desperation to me!! I think you definitely are worried,, worried that some of your perverted liberal agendas will fall by the wayside,, as Obama loses credibility every new day with new revelations concerning the scandal!!
  • John robert 2013/05/10 16:47:49
  • robert John 2013/05/11 00:49:23
    robert
    +3
    jesus didn't endorse gay sex, jesus didn't endorse the killing of babies, jesus didn't tell Obama to lie through his teeth in order to be like him
  • John robert 2013/05/11 15:25:36
  • Chancy 2013/05/07 02:03:35
    Chancy
    +3
    in 2 days we will find out "facts" that were "EXCLUDED" concerning Benghazi
    is that guy still in jail for causing a "riot" out front of the consulate?
    a riot that never was

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/26 00:15:04

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals