JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wow, talk of impeachment with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President......why am I not surprised.

Where were the impeachment hearings for Bush over Iraq?!

Anyone who supports this "for the families" is a liar and a charlatan, they are the worst level of partisan hacks and every one of those House rats can go get soaked as far as I'm concerned.

I have zero use for any of them...none.

Gingrich now Boehner....way to go fellas.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Wow, talk of impeachment with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President......why am I not surprised.

Where were the impeachment hearings for Bush over Iraq?!

Anyone who supports this "for the families" is a liar and a charlatan, they are the worst level of partisan hacks and every one of those House rats can go get soaked as far as I'm concerned.

I have zero use for any of them...none.

Gingrich now Boehner....way to go fellas.

Basically, this is the problem. Everyone not on the extreme right wing of the country believes this is a witch hunt, and is just disappointed that Congress is still talking about it.

[Predicto]

Wow, talk of impeachment with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President......why am I not surprised.

Where were the impeachment hearings for Bush over Iraq?!

Anyone who supports this "for the families" is a liar and a charlatan, they are the worst level of partisan hacks and every one of those House rats can go get soaked as far as I'm concerned.

I have zero use for any of them...none.

Gingrich now Boehner....way to go fellas.

I think that the best way to understand this is as preemptive ammunition against Hillary Clinton running in 2016. Three years from now, you are going to see tons of TV ads with Hillary's face, and the words "scandal" "congressional hearings," "coverup" and "four Americans dead." Is this who you want in charge of our nation?!?!?!?!?!?!

The details won't really matter by that point. The only thing that will matter is whether they made something bad stick to her in people's subconscious. I suspect it will stick pretty hard.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think that the best way to understand this is as preemptive ammunition against Hillary Clinton running in 2016. Three years from now, you are going to see tons of TV ads with Hillary's face, and the words "scandal" "congressional hearings," "coverup" and "four Americans dead." Is this who you want in charge of our nation?!?!?!?!?!?!

The details won't really matter by that point. The only thing that will matter is whether they made something bad stick to her in people's subconscious. I suspect it will stick pretty hard.

This is what the GOP political machine has done a great job of in the last decade or so, but I do feel like this is a little different. Only the really hardcore Hannity-watchers of the world even can understand what the complaint is. Today they "got" Hillary. With what? The evidence of some sort of conspiracy is just non-existent. You go and read the statements and the complaints, and you walk away going "And....?"

I don't think the average person is ever going to be moved by this story unless, obviously, they find some memo or something that Hillary actually did something wrong.

Edit:

I like Lindsey Graham, but:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/vp/51815698#51815698

What's the beef?

[Predicto]

This is what the GOP political machine has done a great job of in the last decade or so, but I do feel like this is a little different. Only the really hardcore Hannity-watchers of the world even can understand what the complaint is.

You don't have to make people understand exactly what the complaint is to be successful. All you have to do is make them suspicious and mistrustful and feel like they are not being told the whole story (which is something that we are all naturally prone to think anyway).

Look at this thread. People are convinced that "there are some henky things going on with this whole situation" even if they don't have any specifics to point to. Beat the drums for long enough and most people will come to assume that where there's smoke, there must be fire.

I like Lindsey Graham, but:

Lindsey Graham has been the worst person on Capitol Hill when it comes to stirring up this mess. He is terrified that he is going to get a primary challenge from the Tea Party right and is blowing this trumpet to shore up his conservative credentials.

[LadySkinsFan]

The Republicans have fired the initial shot over the bow that is Hillary Clinton in 2016. They will be relentless because they are that scared.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's what I'm getting hit with today on facebook, ugh........

[JMS]

I think that the best way to understand this is as preemptive ammunition against Hillary Clinton running in 2016. Three years from now, you are going to see tons of TV ads with Hillary's face, and the words "scandal" "congressional hearings," "coverup" and "four Americans dead." Is this who you want in charge of our nation?!?!?!?!?!?!

The details won't really matter by that point. The only thing that will matter is whether they made something bad stick to her in people's subconscious. I suspect it will stick pretty hard.

Now it is.. but it was originally ammunition against Obama in 2012 which had no legs... Now they are trying to recycle it to be used against Hillary... Against all the evidence I might add.

I think it's what you do when you don't have any real issues to present.

[twa]

anyone want to take a stab at what the administration did wrong?

[JMS]

The Republicans have fired the initial shot over the bow that is Hillary Clinton in 2016. They will be relentless because they are that scared.

They should be scared. Hillary is a juggernaut. She has greatly expanded her resume since her last run and she has just about eliminated the strong negatives which once plagued her.

If she get's into the race it will almost be unopposed because such is her backing inside the democratic party she will suck up all the cash available. I've read even Joe Biden is waiting to see what Hillary will do and he won't even run unless she declines.

And who does the GOP have to run against her? Nobody really of substance... There top guy Christie is strongest in the general but he couldn't get the nomination without really weakening himself with moderates. The rest are just really inexperienced and unknowns.

[Predicto]

anyone want to take a stab at what the administration did wrong?

I think the detailed investigatory report written by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering (both Republicans I believe) pretty much covered it.

[aREDSKIN]

I think that the best way to understand this is as preemptive ammunition against Hillary Clinton running in 2016. Three years from now, you are going to see tons of TV ads with Hillary's face, and the words "scandal" "congressional hearings," "coverup" and "four Americans dead." Is this who you want in charge of our nation?!?!?!?!?!?!

The details won't really matter by that point. The only thing that will matter is whether they made something bad stick to her in people's subconscious. I suspect it will stick pretty hard.

Well IMO this is really quite a black eye. Intentionally lying by politicians is a given but this episode really is problematic. Top down the entire admin has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. A phanllyx of explain aways will obviously be offered but it will sting in the short term. That said not sure it will resonate with anyone in 2016 but to dismiss it it as a Republican witch huntwill not make much headway or sence IMO.

[88Comrade2000]

I think that the best way to understand this is as preemptive ammunition against Hillary Clinton running in 2016. Three years from now, you are going to see tons of TV ads with Hillary's face, and the words "scandal" "congressional hearings," "coverup" and "four Americans dead." Is this who you want in charge of our nation?!?!?!?!?!?!

The details won't really matter by that point. The only thing that will matter is whether they made something bad stick to her in people's subconscious. I suspect it will stick pretty hard.

Stick with who? Hillary Clinton is going to get probably 90% of Obama's 2012 vote and will probably draw some of the people from 2008 who voted for Obama but sat out 2012. Also, she will get a nice chunk of the liberal/moderate Republican female vote.

The people who will use Benghazi as a factor in whether or not to vote for Hillary in 2016 are people who weren't going to vote for her anyway.

Obama has already shown the Democrats the way to win national elections for years to come. Just like the Republicans dominated the PResidential level from 68-92, winning only one term; the Dems will dominate this current era: 92- ??. The Dems will have held the PResidency for 16 out of the last 24 years and that should extend in 2016. Hillary or not.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 07:32 PM ----------

And who does the GOP have to run against her? Nobody really of substance... There top guy Christie is strongest in the general but he couldn't get the nomination without really weakening himself with moderates. The rest are just really inexperienced and unknowns.

Christie, weight loss aside, has limited national appeal. He comes off as a thug and while that might play well in the Northeast where he's from; he will not do well in the rest of country. Just the way he responds to people question him or what he does alone will hurt him.

Odds are the right wing wins their battle over the establishment this time and we have the most right wing Republican candidate since Barry Goldwalter.

[LadySkinsFan]

Well IMO this is really quite a black eye. Intentionally lying by politicians is a given but this episode really is problematic. Top down the entire admin has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. A phanllyx of explain aways will obviously be offered but it will sting in the short term. That said not sure it will resonate with anyone in 2016 but to dismiss it it as a Republican witch huntwill not make much headway or sence IMO.

Well, if Bush and Co. can get a pass for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, then Obama/Clinton should get a pass for the Bengazi incident. BTW, whatever happened to the Republicans not voting for security funds for our embassies?

[deejaydana]

Well, if Bush and Co. can get a pass for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, then Obama/Clinton should get a pass for the Bengazi incident. BTW, whatever happened to the Republicans not voting for security funds for our embassies?

That first sentence is what's wrong with (what seems like) blind partisanship. I haven't really followed this story but just a cursory glance thru headlines reconfirms entrenched positions. Either something very grave happened and mistakes were made or absolutely nothing happened at all if you believe it. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

[aREDSKIN]

Well, if Bush and Co. can get a pass for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, then Obama/Clinton should get a pass for the Bengazi incident. BTW, whatever happened to the Republicans not voting for security funds for our embassies?

If you can show us where Bush& co. got a "pass" for their handling of Iraq & Afghanistan then I'm all ears. Blistered is more like it.Thanks for agreeing that Obama et al intentiaonally LIED to the american public. It's becomming quite apparent they did and weren't ashamed of it. SOP I guess. And please spare us the "republicians" were at fault. It's a tiresome red herring.

[twa]

so no protest as stated by the administration

Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.

clearly inadequate security, as well as a lack of concern by those tasked with ensuring it(obviously administration level,not the guys there pleading for it)

Not very happy with the State Dept are they?

Not impressed at all with the ignoring the security manpower and equipment CLEARY called for in such areas

physical security sucked

security manpower levels sucked

armament sucked

foolish faith in local militia and contract 'guards'( both BML and February 17)

several Hours delay before a ad hock relief team leaves Tripoli

but hey, I'm sure JMS will be happy to know they recommended increased use of Marine Security Guards.:evilg::pfft:

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you can show us where Bush& co. got a "pass" for their handling of Iraq & Afghanistan then I'm all ears.

Oh really???? When was the Congressional hearing on the intel that was used to sell the war?!

I must have missed that, dear God someone send me a link so I can watch the testimony!

[twa]

Oh really???? When was the Congressional hearing on the intel that was used to sell the war?!

I must have missed that, dear God someone send me a link so I can watch the testimony!

You must have, because there were some

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

phase ii

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

[Predicto]

Well IMO this is really quite a black eye. Intentionally lying by politicians is a given but this episode really is problematic. Top down the entire admin has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. A phanllyx of explain aways will obviously be offered but it will sting in the short term. That said not sure it will resonate with anyone in 2016 but to dismiss it it as a Republican witch huntwill not make much headway or sence IMO.

So, tell us exactly how the entire administration has been "caught with its hand in the cookie jar."

What do you think happened, and what do you think has been proven?

[AsburySkinsFan]

You must have, because there were some

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

phase ii

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

They investigated...where were the Congressional hearings?

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 09:07 PM ----------

So, tell us exactly how the entire administration has been "caught with its hand in the cookie jar."

What do you think happened, and what do you think has been proven?

Well you see Hannity said they were guilty, and Rush did too and so did my friend down the road and all three of them agree that I shouldn't listen to no Liberal pantywastes.

[twa]

So how has the hunt for those responsible been going?

[nonniey]

So, tell us exactly how the entire administration has been "caught with its hand in the cookie jar."

What do you think happened, and what do you think has been proven?

Predicto, come on now this is a message board, hyperbole is a given. Of course it is not the entire administration it's just the President, the White House and the State Department leadership in this case.

[@DCGoldPants]

Milbank Opinion Piece....

Whistleblower’s yarn fails to tie Benghazi lapses to politics

By Dana Milbank, Published: May 8

They summoned a whistleblower to Capitol Hill, but instead they got a virtuoso storyteller.

Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat in Libya the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was to be the star witness for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man leading the probe of the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

But despite Issa’s incautious promise that the hearing’s revelations would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday. Rather, he held lawmakers from both parties rapt as he recounted the events of that terrifying night — revealing a made-for-Hollywood plot with a slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion.

He spoke of watching TV at his residence in Tripoli when a security officer “ran into my villa yelling, ‘Greg! Greg! The consulate’s under attack.’ ” He described his brief final phone conversation with Stevens, 600 miles away: “He said, ‘Greg, we’re under attack. . . . And I said, ‘Okay,’ and the line cut.”

He detailed the frantic effort to call in fighter jets from a U.S. base in Italy (“It would take two to three hours for them to get on-site” and there “were no tankers available for them to refuel”). He sipped water to regain his composure after recounting the “saddest phone call I have ever had in my life” — learning from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. And he told of the hasty retreat from the United States’ diplomatic compound in Tripoli, where a similar attack was feared.

His yarn before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee mentioned embassy office manager Amber Pickens carrying ammunition to the getaway vehicles and smashing hard drives with an ax, as well as the rescue-by-ladder of a severely wounded David Ubben from the mortar attack that killed two others.

Hicks went on for 39 minutes — far beyond the customary five-minute allowance — and nobody objected until Issa finally paused the storytelling so lawmakers could pose questions.

More from the link.

[mcsluggo]

Well IMO this is really quite a black eye. Intentionally lying by politicians is a given but this episode really is problematic. Top down the entire admin has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. A phanllyx of explain aways will obviously be offered but it will sting in the short term. That said not sure it will resonate with anyone in 2016 but to dismiss it it as a Republican witch huntwill not make much headway or sence IMO.

i honestly just don't understand what the hell you are talking about here. I'm serious. I can read the outrage, but it is aimed at some vauge and fuzzy abstract general obomaness.... can you give me five one-sentence bullets outlining the source of your outrage? how was the administration caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

i honestly have no clue.