How will Benghazi affect Hillary's run?

[LawBeefaroni]

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

I've heard this a lot. This is the real damning thing, not the failed cover-up of the cover-up. Not just in Lybia but that across the region we've been consorting with Al-Qaeda. While at home we're wiretapping civilians and strip searching them at airports.


But PJ Media (nee Pajamas Media) isn't my favorite source.

[Rip]

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

I've heard this a lot. This is the real damning thing, not the failed cover-up of the cover-up. Not just in Lybia but that across the region we've been consorting with Al-Qaeda. While at home we're wiretapping civilians and strip searching them at airports.


But PJ Media (nee Pajamas Media) isn't my favorite source.

Mine neither but the sources appear credible. Should be an interesting ride.

[msduncan]

I think the thing that will impact Hillary's run the most is who she is running against. The country has a short memory even if this flap turns out to be a bad one in public opinion. 2016 might as well be a century in the future when it comes to the memories of the average voter.

The key for Hillary is who the potential opponent is and nothing more.

[LawBeefaroni]

I think the thing that will impact Hillary's run the most is who she is running against. The country has a short memory even if this flap turns out to be a bad one in public opinion. 2016 might as well be a century in the future when it comes to the memories of the average voter.

The key for Hillary is who the potential opponent is and nothing more.

But she might fall out of favor in her own party, either for her actions/inaction or just plain bad polling, and thus won't get the backing for a run. 3 years isn't just a long time in the memory of the average voter, it's an eternity in the political PR cycle.

[Rip]

For those that have questioned my belief that response forces were told to stand down.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism."

The Foreign Emergency Support Team known as "FEST" is described as "the US Government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide." It even boasts hostage-negotiating expertise. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset. Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start. That decision became a source of great internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders.

Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: "I wish we'd sent it."

Whoever made the decision, it came amid sharp disagreement over the FEST's true capabilities. Kennedy and others at the State Department view the team as one that primarily restores communications at besieged embassies. However, the FEST's own mission statement describes a seasoned team of counterterrorism professionals who can respond "quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks... providing the fastest assistance possible" including "hostage negotiating expertise" and "time-sensitive information and intelligence." In fact, FEST leader Mark Thompson says Benghazi was precisely the sort of crisis to which his team is trained to respond.

While it was the State Department that's said to have taken FEST off the table, the team is directed by the White House National Security Council. Those officials expressed the same limited view of FEST's capabilities when CBS News asked on Nov. 1, 2012, why FEST hadn't deployed. The officials argued that FEST teams were "used in the past to re-establish infrastructure, communications, etc. after a devastating attack...That wasn't the need here."

As soon as word of the Benghazi attack reached Washington, FEST members "instinctively started packing," said an official involved in the response. "They were told they were not deploying by Patrick Kennedy's front office... In hindsight... I probably would've pushed the button."

Under presidential directive, an interagency task force called the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) is to be convened when emergency terrorist events are suspected. According to a public military document, it's part of a plan to "synchronize the efforts of all the government agencies that have a role to play in the Global War on Terrorism." But on Sept. 11, 2012, the Obama administration did not convene this body of terrorism expert advisers.

One official associated with the State Department now acknowledges that the CSG would probably have advised decision makers that FEST "was not just backup generator and radios." Said the official: "the CSG could have made the argument, they were upset that they weren't heard." Another former Defense Department official says he finds no merit to using the CSG. "I'd like to hear them say what they could have done."

Last October, National Security Council (NSC) Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News that the CSG wasn't needed because consultations were quickly underway at the highest levels. He indicated that, under the Obama administration, the function of the CSG has become a "lower level group" that "does different tasks" than under the Bush administration. "From the moment [President Obama] was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in government. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses," said Vietor.

However, absent the CSG's collective advice, there's evidence that some high-level decision makers were unaware of all available resources. In October, on a phone call that included then-Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough (now White House Chief of Staff), Vietor initially told CBS News: "I don't know what [FEST] is... it sounds antiquated."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... ut-malice/

[Enough]

The Onion had this in the their week in pictures package, heh:

[Kraken]

[Exodor]

I'm shocked to discover that 60 Minutes' Benghazi report turns out to be Utter Bullshit

A primary source for the "60 Minutes" report on October 27 was a security contractor using the pseudonym "Morgan Jones," later identified as Dylan Davies. Davies told CBS he was able to reach the Benghazi compound on the night of September 11, 2012, scale a wall and even fight off a militant.

The "60 Minutes" story broadcast October 27 cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save Stevens and his three colleagues. The story was then cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted.

The New York Times, citing two senior government officials, reported Thursday that the contractor told the FBI he did not go the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack.

[Rip]

I'm shocked to discover that 60 Minutes' Benghazi report turns out to be Utter Bullshit

A primary source for the "60 Minutes" report on October 27 was a security contractor using the pseudonym "Morgan Jones," later identified as Dylan Davies. Davies told CBS he was able to reach the Benghazi compound on the night of September 11, 2012, scale a wall and even fight off a militant.

The "60 Minutes" story broadcast October 27 cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save Stevens and his three colleagues. The story was then cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted.

The New York Times, citing two senior government officials, reported Thursday that the contractor told the FBI he did not go the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack.

Or maybe he did and he lied to the FBI because he was worried he might be a "loose end" and would have to seek shelter under Snowden's bed if they found out?

[Pyperkub]

I missed that - awesome!

[hepcat]

I'm shocked to discover that 60 Minutes' Benghazi report turns out to be Utter Bullshit

A primary source for the "60 Minutes" report on October 27 was a security contractor using the pseudonym "Morgan Jones," later identified as Dylan Davies. Davies told CBS he was able to reach the Benghazi compound on the night of September 11, 2012, scale a wall and even fight off a militant.

The "60 Minutes" story broadcast October 27 cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save Stevens and his three colleagues. The story was then cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted.

The New York Times, citing two senior government officials, reported Thursday that the contractor told the FBI he did not go the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack.

Or maybe he did and he lied to the FBI because he was worried he might be a "loose end" and would have to seek shelter under Snowden's bed if they found out?

Maybe. Do you think the League of Evil was involved also? I know Dr. Destruction was released by direct order of the Obama administration around that time. Immediately following that release, The Masked Crusader was attacked in D.C. and his secret power ring was stolen. I'm betting that he used that ring to instigate Benghazi. You should do some research on the matter!

[RunningMn9]

Or maybe he did and he lied to the FBI because he was worried he might be a "loose end" and would have to seek shelter under Snowden's bed if they found out?

Whatever you need to do to preserve the narrative in your head, amiright?

[Pyperkub]

GOP report admits that Benghazi claims of inaction are not true:

In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.

For months after the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, conservative media was awash in reports that on the night of the assault the Obama administration at some point ordered the military not to take action that would have saved lives. This supposed “stand down order” led to a bevy of right-wing conspiracies about why the President and his administration had let the Americans die.

[Vorret]

I am SHOCKED!

[gbasden]

Yeah. Who could possibly have guessed?

$5 says that the 2016 Republican candidate still uses this in a campaign ad.

[Rip]

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.

"The goal of the White House was to do one thing primarily, which was to make the president look good. Blame it on the video and not [the] president's policies," he said.

The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May -- after Republicans refused to move forward with the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director until the so-called "talking points" emails were made public.

The email is also significant because in congressional testimony in early April, former deputy CIA director Michael Morell told lawmakers it was Rice, in her Sunday show appearances, who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morell said the video was not part of the CIA analysis.

"My reaction was two-fold," Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee, regarding her appearances. "One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to."

"US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm" -- was circulated at the most senior levels of the administration. This included going to then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough; then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan; Morell; and Rhodes, among others, but the comments were redacted, citing "personal privacy information."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... for-video/

[Rip]

Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers' higher ups.”

A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source said he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

[Holman]

The NYT is reporting that U.S. Special Forces have taken the top Benghazi suspect into custody.

American Special Operations forces have captured the suspected leader of the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012 and taken him out of that country in a secret commando operation, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.

The suspect, Ahmed Abu Khattala, was captured on Sunday, the Pentagon said in a statement. “All U.S. personnel involved in the operation have safely departed Libya,” the statement said.

Lindsey Graham to explain how this aids terrorists in 3,2,1...

[Fretmute]

Lindsey Graham to explain how this aids terrorists in 3,2,1...

[Isgrimnur]

[Captain Caveman]

Lindsey Graham to explain how this aids terrorists in 3,2,1...

This is silly. Fox News tells us the real reason: to help Hillary's book tour!

[LawBeefaroni]

Lindsey Graham to explain how this aids terrorists in 3,2,1...

When would be a bad political opportunity? Friday before the Superbowl? The Rapture?

Basically there is no time that this news could have come that would satisfy this guy.

[ImLawBoy]

Lindsey Graham to explain how this aids terrorists in 3,2,1...

When would be a bad political opportunity? Friday before the Superbowl? The Rapture?

Basically there is no time that this news could have come that would satisfy this guy.

A week after President Paul's inauguration would have worked better for him, I'm guessing.

[malchior]

I love that these guys think the administration is incompetent in *every* way except for the implication that they are geniuses at timing every bit of good news.

[Holman]

Lindsey Graham to explain how this aids terrorists in 3,2,1...

And there I thought I was making a joke...

[geezer]

I have to confess, I still don't get this "scandal." Is it a "scandal" because some terrorists attacked and killed American diplomats, or is it a "scandal" because the attack was not immediately described as "terrorism?"

[Rip]

I have to confess, I still don't get this "scandal." Is it a "scandal" because some terrorists attacked and killed American diplomats, or is it a "scandal" because the attack was not immediately described as "terrorism?"

It is a scandal because it was an obvious terror attack from jumpstreet and a bunch of politicians used their power and influence to sell it as a protest gone wrong to make sure they won an upcoming election that featured a candidate that was selling Al-Qaeda is almost dead and the threat of terror is low thanks to my fine work. The reality didn't match up with the narrative.

It is obvious now because everyone can see how volatile things really are. Back then many still bought that the administration had made/was making the world safer.

By 10 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012, when Hillary Clinton received a call from President Obama, she was one of the most thoroughly briefed officials in Washington on the unfolding disaster in Benghazi, Libya.
She knew that Ambassador Christopher Stevens and a communications operator were dead, and that the attackers had launched a well-coordinated mortar assault on the CIA annex, which would cost the lives of two more Americans.
She had no doubt that a terrorist attack had been launched against America on the anniversary of 9/11. However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run.
If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.
“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”

This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”
After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.
“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.
“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-br ... tion-book/

[Kraken]

I have to confess, I still don't get this "scandal." Is it a "scandal" because some terrorists attacked and killed American diplomats, or is it a "scandal" because the attack was not immediately described as "terrorism?"

Republicans believe (or want us to believe) that the administration initially described it as a random crime of passion and opportunity because a planned act of terrorism went against their "winning the war" narrative. The point of contention is whether it was genuine fog of war or deliberate misdirection. There's also some armchair generalship about not sending military reinforcements. I'm hazy on the details of the second part myself, but that's where Hillary gets drawn in.

There doesn't seem to be much substance to their charges, but if they keep repeating them often enough and loudly enough they can lodge a scandal in the collective unconscious and rally their supporters every time they cry "Benghazi!". It's similar to the Clintons and Whitewater in that way -- a general sense that they did something nefarious, even if nobody can prove exactly what it was.

[Smoove_B]

It is a scandal because it was an obvious terror attack from jumpstreet and a bunch of politicians used their power and influence to sell it as a protest gone wrong to make sure they won an upcoming election that featured a candidate that was selling Al-Qaeda is almost dead and the threat of terror is low thanks to my fine work. The reality didn't match up with the narrative.

Well, at least there aren't any photos of our President smirking after a news conference regarding the incident and the people that were killed.



Because that would be creepy.

[geezer]

I have to confess, I still don't get this "scandal." Is it a "scandal" because some terrorists attacked and killed American diplomats, or is it a "scandal" because the attack was not immediately described as "terrorism?"

It is a scandal because it was an obvious terror attack from jumpstreet and a bunch of politicians used their power and influence to sell it as a protest gone wrong to make sure they won an upcoming election that featured a candidate that was selling Al-Qaeda is almost dead and the threat of terror is low thanks to my fine work. The reality didn't match up with the narrative.

I don't think you're correct in that assessment. I recall Obama trumpeting the death of Bin Laden, but I don't believe that Obama or any of his administration were campaigning on anything that Benghazi would have undermined. Obama spoke about "acts of terror" on Sept. 12 in Colorado and later that same day in Las Vegas.

It's also been documented that Cheney and Bush used the same, or similar language in describing the Al Qaeda threat in the last part of the Bush administration (the point being, if that language can be described as accurate - or at least described as "not scandalous" at a point when Bin Laden still lived, why is it considered deceptive years later? I mean, besides, "because Obama."

By 10 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012, when Hillary Clinton received a call from President Obama, she was one of the most thoroughly briefed officials in Washington on the unfolding disaster in Benghazi, Libya.
She knew that Ambassador Christopher Stevens and a communications operator were dead, and that the attackers had launched a well-coordinated mortar assault on the CIA annex, which would cost the lives of two more Americans.
She had no doubt that a terrorist attack had been launched against America on the anniversary of 9/11. However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run.
If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.
“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”

This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”
After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.
“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.
“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-br ... tion-book/

Yeah - even Fox, Rush Limbaugh and Peggy Noonan are disavowing that book. Lest we not forget, the same author offered the gem that Chelsea Clinton was a product of a rape perpetrated against Hillary by Bill.

[Rip]

One day after the Benghazi attack that occurred on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, Obama spoke at a campaign event in Las Vegas on Sept. 12.

“A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead,” Obama said in Las Vegas.

On Sept. 13 in Golden, Colo., Obama said, “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq -- and we did. I said we’d wind down the war in Afghanistan -- and we are. And while a new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” He repeated that line again on Sept. 17 in Cincinnati and again that day in Columbus, Ohio.

The next day at a fundraising event at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York, Obama brought up the first 9/11 and used “decimated,” indicating past tense.

“We’ve got choices about war and peace,” Obama said. “I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised. We are transitioning out of Afghanistan. We have gone after the terrorists who actually attacked us 9/11 and decimated al Qaeda.”

On Sept. 20, speaking at the University of Miami, Obama said, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these places – increasingly in places like Syria – what you see is these elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we’ve got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm.”

On Sept. 21 in Woodbridge, Va. and Sept. 23 in Milwaukee, Obama again said, “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.”

Off the campaign trail on Sept. 25, Obama spoke to the United Nations General Assembly and said, “Al Qaeda has been weakened, and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

The next day, campaigning in Bowling Green, Ohio, Obama again said, “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” That same day at Kent State University, Obama used the same line. Obama said the same thing on Sept. 27 in Virginia Beach, Va.

On Sept. 28 at the Hilton in Washington, Obama said, “We said that we would go after al Qaeda, and they are on the run and bin Laden is dead.”

Obama went back to saying the terrorist organization was on the “path to defeat” on Sept. 30 in Las Vegas, Oct. 4 in Denver and Oct. 4 at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

On Oct. 5, Obama again said, “al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

At a fundraising event Oct. 9 in San Francisco, Obama said, “and today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is no more.” He made the same statement on Oct. 11 at the University of Miami and later that day at a campaign event at the J.W. Marriott in Miami.

On Oct. 18 in Manchester, N.H., Obama returned to the “path to defeat” line, which he repeated Oct. 19 in Fairfax, Va.

Obama said Oct. 23 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., “al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.” He repeated the same line at a campaign event in Delray Beach, Fla. that day.

That day in Dayton, Ohio, Obama said, “That’s why, working with Joe Biden and our national security team, we’ve been able to decimate al Qaeda.”

By Oct. 24, he returned to the dominant “path to defeat” theme, before going back to “decimated” the next day in Cleveland, where the president said, “I said we’d refocus on the terrorists who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks – and al Qaeda is decimated and Osama bin Laden is dead.”

Obama returned to Las Vegas to again say “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” He said the same thing Oct. 25 in Richmond, Va., again that day in Tampa and on Oct. 27 in Nashua, N.H.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-t ... i-attack-0

[Isgrimnur]

It's no carrier landing and Mission Accomplished banner.

[geezer]

And so what? None of that is incongruent with the fact that erratic attacks abroad still happen. It's not like anyone denied that people were killed, or tried to cover up the attack. I mean, you're basically telling me that the "scandal" is that a politician tried to spin an event after the fact? Seriously? That's a scandal? Holy Jeebus. Dick Cheney is still spinning Iraq. You know, that little thing where a few more than 4 people died.

Edit - and let's ignore that in many of those same speeches that are excerpted (apparently selectively) Obama quite clearly and directly states that the terrorist threat is still very real. See the Las Vegas link in my last post, for example.

One day after the Benghazi attack that occurred on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, Obama spoke at a campaign event in Las Vegas on Sept. 12.

“A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead,” Obama said in Las Vegas.

On Sept. 13 in Golden, Colo., Obama said, “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq -- and we did. I said we’d wind down the war in Afghanistan -- and we are. And while a new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” He repeated that line again on Sept. 17 in Cincinnati and again that day in Columbus, Ohio.

The next day at a fundraising event at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York, Obama brought up the first 9/11 and used “decimated,” indicating past tense.

“We’ve got choices about war and peace,” Obama said. “I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised. We are transitioning out of Afghanistan. We have gone after the terrorists who actually attacked us 9/11 and decimated al Qaeda.”

On Sept. 20, speaking at the University of Miami, Obama said, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these places – increasingly in places like Syria – what you see is these elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we’ve got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm.”

On Sept. 21 in Woodbridge, Va. and Sept. 23 in Milwaukee, Obama again said, “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.”

Off the campaign trail on Sept. 25, Obama spoke to the United Nations General Assembly and said, “Al Qaeda has been weakened, and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

The next day, campaigning in Bowling Green, Ohio, Obama again said, “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” That same day at Kent State University, Obama used the same line. Obama said the same thing on Sept. 27 in Virginia Beach, Va.

On Sept. 28 at the Hilton in Washington, Obama said, “We said that we would go after al Qaeda, and they are on the run and bin Laden is dead.”

Obama went back to saying the terrorist organization was on the “path to defeat” on Sept. 30 in Las Vegas, Oct. 4 in Denver and Oct. 4 at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

On Oct. 5, Obama again said, “al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

At a fundraising event Oct. 9 in San Francisco, Obama said, “and today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is no more.” He made the same statement on Oct. 11 at the University of Miami and later that day at a campaign event at the J.W. Marriott in Miami.

On Oct. 18 in Manchester, N.H., Obama returned to the “path to defeat” line, which he repeated Oct. 19 in Fairfax, Va.

Obama said Oct. 23 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., “al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.” He repeated the same line at a campaign event in Delray Beach, Fla. that day.

That day in Dayton, Ohio, Obama said, “That’s why, working with Joe Biden and our national security team, we’ve been able to decimate al Qaeda.”

By Oct. 24, he returned to the dominant “path to defeat” theme, before going back to “decimated” the next day in Cleveland, where the president said, “I said we’d refocus on the terrorists who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks – and al Qaeda is decimated and Osama bin Laden is dead.”

Obama returned to Las Vegas to again say “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” He said the same thing Oct. 25 in Richmond, Va., again that day in Tampa and on Oct. 27 in Nashua, N.H.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-t ... i-attack-0

[RunningMn9]

I have to confess, I still don't get this "scandal." Is it a "scandal" because some terrorists attacked and killed American diplomats, or is it a "scandal" because the attack was not immediately described as "terrorism?"

It's a scandal because Republicans needed to be talking about a scandal to try to win an election. So they invented this one.

[Exodor]

It's certainly amusing to see Republicans, the masters of spin, try and characterize political spin as a scandal.

[Pyperkub]

It's certainly amusing to see Republicans, the masters of spin, try and characterize political spin as a scandal.

Even more amusing is Republicans calling out Fox for shilling Benghazi:

On Friday, Fox aired a special about a new book from five commandos who were guarding the CIA annex in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11, 2012. They claim that the chief of the CIA annex in Benghazi gave a stand down order that prevented forces from rescuing U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans....

...Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, dismissed a conspiracy about the attacks on U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi...

...Asked (on Fox News) about accusations made by the commandos’ lawyer that intelligence committee sought to intimidate and dismiss the men in order to protect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rogers bristled.

“The lawyers asked that none of their testimony be released until after their book was out and being sold,” he said. “I think you have lawyers who have a financial interest in this certainly making allegations that are far from true.”

[Rip]

Since when do congressional committees withhold testimony details for book releases at the request of attorneys for those testifying? Certainly plenty of shenanigans from all sides when it comes to that event.

[Kraken]

And that's the end of that.

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, and no missed opportunity for a military rescue.

It also found no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

As for the thread title, I imagine it gives Hillary grounds to accuse Republicans of wasting time and money on a groundless witch-hunt...although I suspect that we just won't hear about it anymore, which suits me fine.

[Teggy]

Weird, I could have sworn I posted this last night...

Read any of the many, many articles on the Benghazi report and you'll find something like this from NBC

The Republican-led House Select Committee on Intelligence on Friday released its report on the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and it found that the military and the Central Intelligence Agency responded appropriately during the attacks.

The investigation, which took nearly two years and thousands of hours of work, found the CIA had "ensured sufficient security" and "bravely assisted" the night of attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The panel also found no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.

The committee said bit found no evidence that the military was ordered to "stand down" during the attacks in Benghazi, as some had claimed, and that "appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night." It also found no evidence of similar claims that the CIA was involved in arms shipments or other unauthorized activities.

The report did say that the initial narrative by the White House that the attack stemmed from a protest was not accurate, but it blamed that on contradictory intelligence assessments in the attack’s aftermath rather than an effort to obscure the truth. The committee said it found "no evidence that any officer present during the attacks was intimidated" to prevent them from addressing Congress or revealing what they witnessed.

Then you can go over to Fox...

The report described the attack as "complex" with the attackers affiliated with Al Qaeda. It also said the initial CIA assessment concluded there were no demonstrations outside the State Department Consulate in Eastern Libya.

Referring to the House Select committee Chairman, and the Democratic ranking member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, said the current House investigation should be expanded.*

"Number one, Mike Morrell misled three senators," Graham said of their November 2012 meeting on Capitol Hill, where Morell accompanied then UN Ambassador Susan Rice to explain her flawed explanation on national television five days after the attack.

"I think it's important that for future CIA personnel to understand, that if you come to Congress and you’re asked a question and you give a deceptive answer, you tell half the story, not the entire story, you play word games, it will follow you and will be unacceptable," Graham said.

Fox News was first to report on September 17, 2012, one day after Rice's controversial Sunday talk show appearances, that there were no protests when the attack unfolded.

"One day after the assault, on 9/12/12, the first CIA assessment about the attacks, a September 12th Executive update, said ‘the presence of armed assailants from the incident’s outset suggests this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest,” investigators found. And while intelligence gaps remain, "No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts,” the report added.

*yes, you heard that right, there is still another investigation going on. Not only that, this was the 7th and that one is the 8th.

[Zarathud]

8 investigations led by assholes that couldn't find their ass from a hole in the ground.