Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 167
Thanks Tree13Thanks

Thread: 12 Revelations We've Learned From The Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson-Townhall

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,295
    Thanks
    1341

    From
    Center of the universe no more

    12 Revelations We've Learned From The Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson-Townhall

    The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson
    Much of the media and liberal establishment simply ignored yesterday's Benghazi hearings. They were content to see, hear, and speak no evil -- which is typically the fastest way to kill a story in Washington. Others framed the proceedings as just another quixotic, partisan effort to hype a long-resolved story. Selling that template requires adherence to two fallacious assertions: First, that no major questions remain regarding the 9/11 terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- and second, that no new information emerged from the whistle-blowers' hours-long testimony. ...
    Cutting through the nonsense and dissembling, here's what we now know:

    (1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens' second in command, Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. ...

    (2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the administration's inaccurate talking points with State Department higher-ups, the administration turned hostile. After being lavishly praised by the president and the Secretary of State for his performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones instantly reversed course and launched into a "blistering critique" of Hicks' leadership. ...

    (3) Secretaries Clinton and Rice (the president's hand-selected messenger on Benghazi to the American people) repeatedly stated that the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube video. This was never true. ...
    Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff. [UPDATE - Rep. Trey Gowdy also revealed an email sent on 9/12 in which Assistant Sec. Jones confirmed to a Libyan official that the attack had been carried out by terrorist organization Ansar al-Sharia]. Days later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the flag-draped coffins of the fallen. Hicks said there he never mentioned any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call with Clinton.

    Questions: How, why, and by whom did the administration's talking points get scrubbed and re-written? Why did the president refuse to identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently false information on his behalf?

    (4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.

    ...
    (6) Amb. Stevens was stationed at the vulnerable Benghazi compound on a dangerous symbolic date at the behest of Sec. Clinton, who wished to make that diplomatic mission a permanent outpost. This detail should only intensify questions as to why the consulate was so poorly protected (see item #7).

    (7) Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made.

    ...
    (9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant -- the facts in item #4 notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last? How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.

    (11) Oversight Democrats tried to cast doubt on Mark Thompson's credibility, suggesting that he'd declined to participate in the administration's ARB probe. Thompson corrected the record, noting that he "offered his services" to those investigators, who in turn did not invite him to testify. Democrats also claimed that the House hearings were slanted because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not invited to participate. In fact, Chairman Issa explicitly did invite them, as confirmed by letters obtained by ABC News. They chose not to participate. Democrats were dead wrong on both counts.

    (12) During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton memorably asked, "what difference does it make?" in regards to the provenance of the administration's incorrect talking points. Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrom both attempted to answer that question. Hicks did so in granular detail (the false explanation opened a nasty rift between the US and Libyan governments, impeding the FBI's investigation for weeks). An emotional Nordstrom was more general (we lost friends; the truth matters):

    One of the few points of bipartisan agreement was that the number of unresolved issues merit additional hearings on Benghazi.
    Lots of questions. It was not quite, "nothing new here".
    Last edited by Telecaster; 9th May 2013 at 07:12 PM.

  2. #2
    Join, or Die nonsqtr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32,903
    Thanks
    4664

    From
    Vertiform City
    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson


    Lots of questions. It was not quite, "nothing new here".
    The link to #6 does not support the allegation being made.

    The allegation, if it is true, is damning and more than suggestive - however the link under "behest" doesn't support the allegation.

    (6) Amb. Stevens was stationed at the vulnerable Benghazi compound on a dangerous symbolic date at the behest of Sec. Clinton, who wished to make that diplomatic mission a permanent outpost. This detail should only intensify questions as to why the consulate was so poorly protected (see item #7).
    To my knowledge we don't yet know the specifics of what led Stevens back to Benghazi (from Germany, where he was).

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,280
    Thanks
    3087

    From
    Greenridge Free State
    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson


    Lots of questions. It was not quite, "nothing new here".

    Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice assuring the grieving relatives that they would "get the guy that made the video" is one of the most disgusting things coming out of this.

    What crass pigs.

  4. #4
    SUE CONGRESS the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    32,226
    Thanks
    7866

    From
    where ever i go
    It's the cry wold syndrome. If Republican's hadn't politicized this from the start it might have had more legs.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,295
    Thanks
    1341

    From
    Center of the universe no more
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr
    The link to #6 does not support the allegation being made.

    The allegation, if it is true, is damning and more than suggestive - however the link under "behest" doesn't support the allegation.



    To my knowledge we don't yet know the specifics of what led Stevens back to Benghazi (from Germany, where he was).
    I'm not sure why you think that, non. Benson's contention is that security should have been beefed up. But the linked article does also speak of Clinton's goals as well. And what I take from that is that Steven's may have been too obliging and aggressive in getting it done before the SoS trip to Tripoli, to his own demise.
    Last edited by Telecaster; 10th May 2013 at 06:15 AM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,295
    Thanks
    1341

    From
    Center of the universe no more
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenridgeman View Post
    Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice assuring the grieving relatives that they would "get the guy that made the video" is one of the most disgusting things coming out of this.

    What crass pigs.
    And Charles Woods says he knew it was not true while the words were coming out of Clinton's mouth right in front of him!

    But, we don't know why exactly the Admin thought it should carry this line. We can only speculate at this point, with some of the assumptions being obvious and possible.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,295
    Thanks
    1341

    From
    Center of the universe no more
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    It's the cry wold syndrome. If Republican's hadn't politicized this from the start it might have had more legs.
    Here's the thing, @watchman...the partisan political dogs will always be there. We can't do anything about that. But we can and should continue searching out this very important event for no other reason than to possess a clear and honest impression of the people who lead our country. No interested citizen should ever stop doing that. [EDIT] We have to know when our government is corrupt, incompetent or flawed.[EDIT]

    Look, I admit I oppose the Obama administration, the contemporary Democrat party, and most of their domestic and foreign policies. But policy is the only reason I oppose them. This is not personal with me. They, and you, simply hold a different vision for the nation, and you incorporate solutions I feel generate a new set of resultant problems. So I have no intention of seeking the truth in anything just because someone else is trying to use these events only to promote themselves.
    Last edited by Telecaster; 10th May 2013 at 06:53 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,295
    Thanks
    1341

    From
    Center of the universe no more
    Watching Morning Joe today, I learned;

    From Jonathon Karl (ABC): has uncovered State Dept emails from a Paula (Newland or Newman) stating that the terrorist reference language should be removed as it will only give the GOP reason to go after the SoS.

    From Michael Crowley (Time Magazine): The original CIA assessment spoke of demonstrations. However, Crowley did not elaborate in what context the CIA made this mention. He only wanted the listener to understand the CIA did mention it in its report.

    Crowley also cited that David Petraeus wanted the text omitted because he did not want to tip off the terrorists that we were on their trail. This only tells me that Petraeus needs a thorough grilling under questioning to learn what part if any he played in the revised talking points. Did the final CIA report to State actually omit the language? Or was it done in the hands of State?

    So it is sorely necessary that we know the truth because if it was simply a matter of not wanting to tip off terrorists, WHY, DURING THE FEW WEEKS AFTER 9/11/12, DID THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY SPEND SO MUCH TIME TELLING US HE KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK? what happened to secrecy at those times?
    Last edited by Telecaster; 10th May 2013 at 06:55 AM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,295
    Thanks
    1341

    From
    Center of the universe no more
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    It's the cry wold syndrome. If Republican's hadn't politicized this from the start it might have had more legs.
    @watchman, great point made by Limbaugh just now...

    The Republicans didn't politicize this issue. They are only reacting to it. IT IS THE Administration THAT POLITICIZED THE EVENTS OF BENGHAZI!

    And no one can intelligently argue that.

  10. #10
    The shores of Ebola Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    33,887
    Thanks
    6426

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    @watchman, great point made by Limbaugh just now...

    The Republicans didn't politicize this issue. They are only reacting to it. IT IS THE Administration THAT POLITICIZED THE EVENTS OF BENGHAZI!

    And no one can intelligently argue that.
    Romney politicized it first.

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed