Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi is Stupid (For the GOP)

[AUUSN 823]

Semantics, General Lovell was J2 at AFRICOM. AFRICOM couldnt move out until State requested. State never requested...

The military did do all it could (within the restrains placed on it by State).

[homersapien 12,353]

Semantics, General Lovell was J2 at AFRICOM. AFRICOM couldnt move out until State requested. State never requested...

The military did do all it could (within the restrains placed on it by State).

Can you point out that conclusion please? I couldn't find it.

http://armedservices...8A-48C5D6C2F0CC

[AUUSN 823]

Semantics, General Lovell was J2 at AFRICOM. AFRICOM couldnt move out until State requested. State never requested...

The military did do all it could (within the restrains placed on it by State).

Can you point out that conclusion please? I couldn't find it.

http://armedservices...8A-48C5D6C2F0CC

"Lovell also said the State Department never asked the military for backup that evening. “Basically, there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what they wanted and the deference to the Libyan people and the sense of deference to the desires of the State Department in terms of what they would like to have,” he said when asked why no request was made. McKeon, however, disputed this. “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents,” he said. “We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/01/general-we-didn-t-even-try-to-save-american-lives-in-benghazi.html

Embassy Security is State's responsibility. We go in upon request. That's the rules.

[autigeremt 7,262]

Good luck telling this guy how things work.

[AURandy56 148]

Would you be as outraged about this committee if this was a Republican administration?

[autigeremt 7,262]

Would you be as outraged about this committee if this was a Republican administration?

Absolutely! Maybe even more so.

[homersapien 12,353]

Semantics, General Lovell was J2 at AFRICOM. AFRICOM couldnt move out until State requested. State never requested...

The military did do all it could (within the restrains placed on it by State).

Can you point out that conclusion please? I couldn't find it.

http://armedservices...8A-48C5D6C2F0CC

"Lovell also said the State Department (1) never asked the military for backup that evening. “Basically, there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what they wanted and the deference to the Libyan people and the sense of deference to the desires of the State Department in terms of what they would like to have,” he said when asked why no request was made. McKeon, however, disputed this. “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents,” he said. (2) “We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

http://www.thedailyb...n-benghazi.html

Embassy Security is State's responsibility. We go in upon request. That's the rules.

Well, let's back up. The statement in question here is:

"Lovell answered that they could have done so if the capabilities had been in place, and that there should have been a way for the military to respond. He emphasized that he was testifying because he wanted to make sure that in the future, such capabilities would be on hand. But he agreed adamantly with the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose report concluded that the military did all it could do on that tragic night. "That's a fact," Lovell said."

Point # 1 above does not address the question.

Point # 2 refutes the very idea the State Dept didn't ask for help at all (or too late.)

So, it looks to me the article got it right.

The biggest criticism I can see is that the State Department didn't anticipate the need for military support (and deploy it) before the incident occurred.

I suppose that's true enough, but it's kind of like blaming Bush for not anticipating and preventing 9/11.

[homersapien 12,353]

Good luck telling this guy how things work.

Thanks for you contribution. :-\

[autigeremt 7,262]

Good luck telling this guy how things work.

Thanks for you contribution. :-\/>

You're welcome Mr. Contradiction.

[autigeremt 7,262]

Semantics, General Lovell was J2 at AFRICOM. AFRICOM couldnt move out until State requested. State never requested...

The military did do all it could (within the restrains placed on it by State).

Can you point out that conclusion please? I couldn't find it.

http://armedservices...8A-48C5D6C2F0CC

"Lovell also said the State Department (1) never asked the military for backup that evening. “Basically, there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what they wanted and the deference to the Libyan people and the sense of deference to the desires of the State Department in terms of what they would like to have,” he said when asked why no request was made. McKeon, however, disputed this. “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents,” he said. (2) “We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

http://www.thedailyb...n-benghazi.html

Embassy Security is State's responsibility. We go in upon request. That's the rules.

Well, let's back up. The statement in question here is:

"Lovell answered that they could have done so if the capabilities had been in place, and that there should have been a way for the military to respond. He emphasized that he was testifying because he wanted to make sure that in the future, such capabilities would be on hand. But he agreed adamantly with the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose report concluded that the military did all it could do on that tragic night. "That's a fact," Lovell said."

Point # 1 above does not address the question.

Point # 2 refutes the very idea the State Dept didn't ask for help at all (or too late.)

So, it looks to me the article got it right.

The biggest criticism I can see is that the State Department didn't anticipate the need for military support (and deploy it) before the incident occurred.

I suppose that's true enough, but it's kind of like blaming Bush for not anticipating and preventing 9/11.

Not even close!!! Bush responded after the attack. This administration did nothing! This administration stood in the Oval Office and watched it unfold and did nothing. Good try.

[homersapien 12,353]

Semantics, General Lovell was J2 at AFRICOM. AFRICOM couldnt move out until State requested. State never requested...

The military did do all it could (within the restrains placed on it by State).

Can you point out that conclusion please? I couldn't find it.

http://armedservices...8A-48C5D6C2F0CC

"Lovell also said the State Department (1) never asked the military for backup that evening. “Basically, there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what they wanted and the deference to the Libyan people and the sense of deference to the desires of the State Department in terms of what they would like to have,” he said when asked why no request was made. McKeon, however, disputed this. “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents,” he said. (2) “We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

http://www.thedailyb...n-benghazi.html

Embassy Security is State's responsibility. We go in upon request. That's the rules.

Well, let's back up. The statement in question here is:

"Lovell answered that they could have done so if the capabilities had been in place, and that there should have been a way for the military to respond. He emphasized that he was testifying because he wanted to make sure that in the future, such capabilities would be on hand. But he agreed adamantly with the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose report concluded that the military did all it could do on that tragic night. "That's a fact," Lovell said."

Point # 1 above does not address the question.

Point # 2 refutes the very idea the State Dept didn't ask for help at all (or too late.)

So, it looks to me the article got it right.

The biggest criticism I can see is that the State Department didn't anticipate the need for military support (and deploy it) before the incident occurred.

I suppose that's true enough, but it's kind of like blaming Bush for not anticipating and preventing 9/11.

Not even close!!! Bush responded after the attack. This administration did nothing! This administration stood in the Oval Office and watched it unfold and did nothing. Good try.

We should have invaded someone?

You totally missed my point. I wasn't comparing reactions (which after all, would be absurd.) I was talking about anticipation before the fact.

Actually, I was making the point that such criticism would have been unfair to Bush (even though such a case could have been - and was - made).

And I don't get the "Mr. Contradiction" thing either. Where did I contradict myself?

[AUisAll 2]

The more Republicans who cynically use the tragic death of four Americans for the purpose of political fundraising, the more I'd like to know why they do so. It's very telling as to the true values of the right.

Republicans Continue Trying To Fundraise Off Benghazi

http://www.huffingto..._n_5288336.html

Oops. Even the lying fake indian democrat is doing it. Hypocrite much?

http://freebeacon.com/blog/blood-money-elizabeth-warren-is-fundraising-off-benghazi/

[homersapien 12,353]

The more Republicans who cynically use the tragic death of four Americans for the purpose of political fundraising, the more I'd like to know why they do so. It's very telling as to the true values of the right.

Republicans Continue Trying To Fundraise Off Benghazi

http://www.huffingto..._n_5288336.html

Oops. Even the lying fake indian democrat is doing it. Hypocrite much?

http://freebeacon.co...g-off-benghazi/

Well, it's not surprising that Democrats would take advantage of the Republican politicization of the issue by pointing it out. In other words, Warren is politicizing the Republican's politicizing. It's not like she would be trying to use Benghazi if the Republicans hadn't already started to.

I know this is way too subtle for you to make the distinction, but I fully expect a lot more from the Democratic side pointing out what the Republicans are doing with Benghazi as the election nears. Both sides will be using it. That doesn't change the fact it is a Republican-generated political gambit.

But if you feel a Democratic response to this Republican political gambit negates the moral transgression of using Benghazi for blatantly political purposes, have at it. It certainly doesn't surprise me.

(Oh, btw "hypocrite" is a noun, not a verb. )

[TheBlueVue 177]

The more Republicans who cynically use the tragic death of four Americans for the purpose of political fundraising, the more I'd like to know why they do so. It's very telling as to the true values of the right.

Republicans Continue Trying To Fundraise Off Benghazi

http://www.huffingto..._n_5288336.html

Rereading through this thread the hysterical hypocrisy coming from progressives is beyond laughable. Yeah, its stupid seeking closure of the deaths of 4 American patriots. I have to wonder, when did whether or not Americans knowing where a crime was committed make it important....or not, as it were?

Seeing the left whining about this for being stupid because its being made into a political issue is shocking isn't it? What do politicians do if not make just about everything political?...OH wait, I know democrats never politicize gun control every time some lunatic does on a killing spree but I guess its OK to raise funds then, huh? I am certain that democrats never politicize violent storms when people die, right? I seem to recall Barbara Boxer taking the floor of the Senate after one particularly violent tornado and saying and I quote, "This is why I favor a carbon tax." That seems to qualify as what they are now condemning, No?

Progressive hypocrisy is rather cute but their manufactured and YES phony political outrage over getting to the truth of how the Benghazi tragedy was SO poorly managed and why might just take the cake. Clearly, politicizing tragedy is the progressive's domain and, while that is THEIR wheelhouse, by God, nobody else is going to do it and get away with it! lol

[homersapien 12,353]

The more Republicans who cynically use the tragic death of four Americans for the purpose of political fundraising, the more I'd like to know why they do so. It's very telling as to the true values of the right.

Republicans Continue Trying To Fundraise Off Benghazi

http://www.huffingto..._n_5288336.html

Rereading through this thread the hysterical hypocrisy coming from progressives is beyond laughable. Yeah, its stupid seeking closure of the deaths of 4 American patriots. I have to wonder, when did whether or not Americans knowing where a crime was committed make it important....or not, as it were?

Seeing the left whining about this for being stupid because its being made into a political issue is shocking isn't it? What do politicians do if not make just about everything political?...OH wait, I know democrats never politicize gun control every time some lunatic does on a killing spree but I guess its OK to raise funds then, huh? I am certain that democrats never politicize violent storms when people die, right? I seem to recall Barbara Boxer taking the floor of the Senate after one particularly violent tornado and saying and I quote, "This is why I favor a carbon tax." That seems to qualify as what they are now condemning, No?

Progressive hypocrisy is rather cute but their manufactured and YES phony political outrage over getting to the truth of how the Benghazi tragedy was SO poorly managed and why might just take the cake. Clearly, politicizing tragedy is the progressive's domain and, while that is THEIR wheelhouse, by God, nobody else is going to do it and get away with it! lol

First wipe the spittle off your chin and just listen for a second.

Please be aware that my post was a satirical response to post #100 by emt in which he said:

"The more Democrats declare the unjustified death of four Americans as nothing to worry about, the more I to know why they think so. It's very telling as to the true allegiance of the left. "

Such a statement is clearly hyperbolic nonsense. I thought the best way to point this out was to demonstrate just how concerned Republicans are about the "unjustified death of four Americans" by their politicizing it. So I used more or less the same phrasing as a mockery.

Personally, I am not surprised they are already fund-raising on the issue. That's what politicians do. And clearly, this is more about developing a campaign issue than it is getting to the truth.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some new information will come out of this investigation that hasn't already been revealed in the numerous investigations preceding this one. (I forget just how many, but they were obviously too soon to be useful for the elections.)

But I seriously doubt there will be anything new. Clearly there is enough culpability - in hindsight - to gin this up as a scandal. But one can look an any number of incidents that occurred under either Republican or Democratic administrations and do the same thing. In many cases, it was done, by one party or the other.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't point it out that it's being done again. By Republicans in this case. But like I said, they will probably overplay their hand. They usually do.

So you can drop the (non-existent) argument that only Republicans do this. No one has made it.

I realize that asking you to confine yourself only to arguments that are being made will be a severe handicap for you, but that's your problem, not ours.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"But I seriously doubt there will be anything new. Clearly there is enough culpability - in hindsight - to gin this up as a scandal. But one can look an any number of incidents that occurred under either Republican or Democratic administrations and do the same thing. In many cases, it was done, by one party or the other."

Do you feel this way because you are confident in the State Depts openness and compliance with ALL FOIA requests for documents concerning Benghazi?

**As an after thought I am also compelled to ask, since you've stated you never claimed that democrats don't raise money on the back of tragedies..when was the last time you saw a republican take the floor of the House or Senate and publicly whine about them doing it?

Progressive whiners are awesome..they do it better than anyone!

[homersapien 12,353]

"But I seriously doubt there will be anything new. Clearly there is enough culpability - in hindsight - to gin this up as a scandal. But one can look an any number of incidents that occurred under either Republican or Democratic administrations and do the same thing. In many cases, it was done, by one party or the other."

Do you feel this way because you are confident in the State Depts openness and compliance with ALL FOIA requests for documents concerning Benghazi?

No, I feel that way because of what has already been done investigating it. To illustrate, the following is the best summary I can find of what we already know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

[TheBlueVue 177]

"But I seriously doubt there will be anything new. Clearly there is enough culpability - in hindsight - to gin this up as a scandal. But one can look an any number of incidents that occurred under either Republican or Democratic administrations and do the same thing. In many cases, it was done, by one party or the other."

Do you feel this way because you are confident in the State Depts openness and compliance with ALL FOIA requests for documents concerning Benghazi?

No, I feel that way because of what has already been done investigating it. To illustrate, the following is the best summary I can find of what we already know:

http://en.wikipedia....Benghazi_attack

http://en.wikipedia....Benghazi_attack

Do you think the investigation would have taken this long had the State Dept cooperated instead of stonewalling every single request for documentation from the Over sight Committee? It's funny how the talking point is invariably.."we're still talking about something that happened almost 2 years ago" when clearly this has taken this long because the State Dept has dug in their heels and pushed back at every turn.

Do you not find it the least bit interesting that the Ben Rhodes e-mail had been previously submitted by the State dept but was redacted to the point of rendering it completely useless until Judicial Watch sued using FOIA laws and was able to get the complete document? How many more documents can be had that the State Dept saw fit to redacting all the useful information out of them?

The length of the investigation is not a legitimate argument when considering the efforts the State Dept has exerted in obstructing it. I do agree it should have been over a LONG time ago but the lawlessness of this administration seems to imply they believe the laws don't apply to them.

[autigeremt 7,262]

Trying to get Mr. devils advocate to understand or even begin to care what we believe or see with this scandal is a waste of time.

[homersapien 12,353]

Trying to get Mr. devils advocate to understand or even begin to care what we believe or see with this scandal is a waste of time.

Don't snipe emt. You're better than that.

[autigeremt 7,262]

Trying to get Mr. devils advocate to understand or even begin to care what we believe or see with this scandal is a waste of time.

Don't snipe emt. You're better than that.

On this issue, I'm not. It's personal.

[homersapien 12,353]

Trying to get Mr. devils advocate to understand or even begin to care what we believe or see with this scandal is a waste of time.

Don't snipe emt. You're better than that.

On this issue, I'm not. It's personal.

So are you saying you have a reason to be biased? Did you know one of the victims or something?

[autigeremt 7,262]

Trying to get Mr. devils advocate to understand or even begin to care what we believe or see with this scandal is a waste of time.

Don't snipe emt. You're better than that.

On this issue, I'm not. It's personal.

So are you saying you have a reason to be biased? Did you know one of the victims or something?

I'm biased because three brothers and an American ambassador were left to die with NOTHING done to help them. It's always personal when American servicemen and women are involved! And don't start the Iraq War revolving liberal door. I've written my share of letters to the last three Administrations.