Benghazi Hearings Live Thread (with video link)

Um, which of those attacks was the same as the other attack. According to intelligence, it would have taken in excess of 6 hrs. just to get a plane to fly over. And that's with a refueling plane. It was never a matter of wanting to deny. It was a mater of logistical means and a question of what good it would have done to begin with. And the blame front that the republicans are in a wad about was only a hypothetical scenario that they were instructed to say to divert away from an ongoing investigation that needed more time. And the trouble maker party just used it for politics sake, so they keep ginning up the idiots in the crowd to keep the pot stirring. So at present they have nothing, because there is nothing, and they will continue to waste tax payer money on "NOTHING". Because doing something that means nothing is the republican way of life now.

 

so you think the administration should help convict itself? get a grip

if there's compelling evidence, it will come out, just like it did with nixon

i'm willing to bet that nothing significant comes of this, because there was no crime

are you willing to bet or are you just pulling a partisan bluff?

 

When they don't have their equipment, which is one of the reasons they were told not to board the plane.

 

So, this is a figment of your imagination, or what?

 

I think we can all agree that Barack Obama's policy on Libya has not produced anything positive for the American people. I love it when we can have a meeting of the minds.

 

MSNBC = 0 Minutes of live hearing and White House talking points continuously all day long. Pathetic... this is not a News Network anymore.
CNN - Less than 20 minutes... sad

 

You got a link, cause that is complete BS. They always have their equipment. Always.

Been there. Done that. In fact, you are 100% wrong on this.

 

If there had ever been a smoking gun it would have already spilled out. The sour grape party wishes and prays for it every day because of their obsessive hate for Clinton and Obama. And forget governing this country. It's of no interest to them now. Before 2010 they were all about jobs. After that, not a peep. It's been all Obama pushing for jobs, and him alone.

 

Demonstration over youtube video. Spontaneous attack formed out of mob.

Secretary of State, Secretary of defense, CIA director, AFRICOM commander... all retired in the months after Benghazi... none of the departures make sense. The timing and given reasons are just all wrong.

There is a lot more discovery needed. We don't know all that is going on yet, and what we do know, ain't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing good.

 

How many times are you folks going to politicize mobs and videos. That was the initial reaction until further info was obtained. That's all it ever was. Just a get Clinton out of the White House free card is all this is about. "And everyone retiring after Bengazi". Of course they would. It's all politics. And they new it. "More discovery needed". The only discovery needed is the fact that all the embassies in the world are under funded. That's always been the problem. That's really what these hearings should have been about. But instead, it's all about keeping Clinton from running for office.

 

I vote for a Democrat in almost every election cycle.

After her failure as SecState and her now being disclosed role in Benghazi that should disqualify her on it's own. But to all those who are so critical of the Bush administration for using military force to remove Saddam even claiming it was a war crime, how can you support Hillary who was one of the most ardent and adamant and unequivocal supporters of doing exactly that. Why doesn't that disqualify her in their eyes?

- - - Updated - - -

More like DIPLOMATS DIED -- OBAMA AND CLINTON LIED.

 

Yes because he was going to loss in the House first and then the Senate and the Republicans went to the White House in a very famous meeting and told him it was over, that he no longer had their support. Until that happened he was determined to go through the impeachment. Exactly what the Democrats should have done with Clinton,

I probably know more about what an impeachment proceeding is or isn't than you so you can spare us the lessons.

O'Neil was never going to go forward on an impeachment because he had no grounds, Iran/Contra was a policy disagreement between the Democrats in Congress and the WH.

Clinton didn't balance the budget, Gingrich and Kasich balanced the budget by measures Clinton opposed but was forced to sign onto and his tax increase cost us revenue growth. That being sad you seem ignorant of the reasons he was impeached and the was because the OIC presented clear and convincing evidence to the House of Representatives, as require by the OIC law when that evidence was discovered, Clinton had committed multiple felons in a federal courtroom and a federal grand jury. Offenses he was held in contempt of court for and received a heavy fine and lost his license to practice law and for which he later plea bargained the criminal offense to avoid trial.

Says the man who claims the Clinton impeachment was just about the sex.

 

No it wasn't, the reaction for the get-go was that is was a terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration. There never was a demonstration or protest.

Funding had nothing to do with it.

 

I can't believe Obama's apologists are still peddling that canard. During the very first hearing on this debacle Charlene Lamb testified that funding had absolutely nothing to do with the decision not to provide adequate security to the consulate in Benghazi.

 

Spare us your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Charlene Lamb testified that funding had nothing to do with the decision to deprive the consulate of the security that was requested by our personnel in Libya.

 

I've seen videos of Marine units called to muster in the SHOWERS ready to Ride and Rumble in less than five minutes.

The inane claim that these guys 'were not ready" is laughable. They are also, most undoubtably, PISSED that they were not given the opportunity to enter the fray in Benghazi, as well, I'll wager.

 

Quit trying to spread your bull someplace else. I'm talking about the original funding for Bengazi that was asked for but denied by congress. We had Militia at that outpost. We shouldn't have been there to begin with, because of the funding.

 

They were locked and loaded and chomping at the bit !!!

However, I must admit, that in accordance with Hickey's testimony, there was a perceived threat for the folks still in Tripoli. And I believe they had about 50 civilians working for the Embassy there. I can see a legitimate decision being made to keep those four in Tripoli to help with the evacuation that they did do there. Around 5 AM (first light) Tripoli time, if I recall correctly.

 

your post is what's inane


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday told a Pentagon briefing, "We -- we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

"But the basic principle here is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

CBS News reported on Thursday that an unarmed predator drone was diverted to Benghazi two and a half hours after the attack began, and another unarmed drone was sent four hours and 15 minutes later. CBS said those were the only U.S. military forces sent to the scene.

Although Special Forces were dispatched from Europe to an air field in Sicily, CBS said they didn't get there until the Benghazi attack was over.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/panetta-you-dont-deploy-forces-harms-way-without-knowing-whats-going

 

What part of Charlene Lamb's testimony eludes your grasp?

[video=youtube;joPlJPFHFr4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPlJPFHFr4[/video]
.

We shouldn't have been there because a bunch of idiots in the Obama Administration decided not to provide the security necessary to defend the facility and its personnel.

 

Nixon resigned because he was about to be successfully impeached.
Gingrich went ahead with an impeachment he knew would fail, for petty political reasons, he believed the impeachment would enhance GOP popularity.

You hide it well

Reagan had violated the law, but Senate Republicans didn't care, they weren't going vote to convict.
O'Neil chose not to proceed with an impeachment that he knew would fail.

Clinton balanced the budget with tax increases on the wealthy, that's what really happened.
When Clinton was gone, that very same GOP congress you want to believe balanced the budget, turned those record surpluses into record deficits in short order.

Clinton was impeached for petty political reasons by people more interested in the power of their party, than in the welfare of the nation.

 

The part where she opens her mouth to speak... everything after that, no doubt!

 

Clinton was impeached, held in contempt of court and disbarred for lying under oath.

Aren't facts a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)?