U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[CrossEyed]

Interesting that Pickering and Mullen declined to testify to be able to defend their investigation and report.

 

[CrossEyed]

Issa and Cummings already taking shots at each other. Our government is such a mess.

 

[sporthenry]

Cummings laying it on thick.

 

[CrossEyed]

Nice, basically smearing their credibility before they even speak. Good job.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Pickering and Mullen declined to testify to be able to defend their investigation and report.

 

[sporthenry]

Nice, basically smearing their credibility before they even speak. Good job.

So we shouldn't hear both sides? Sounds good.

 

[CrossEyed]

Nice, basically smearing their credibility before they even speak. Good job.

So we shouldn't hear both sides? Sounds good.

Of course we should, but don't slam them before they even get the chance to speak. If what they say is untrue, allow that to be revealed in the questioning process. Seemed like an intimidation tactic to me.

 

[Ghost Rider]

CNN and Fox News now both carrying the hearings live.

Not a peep out of MSNBC. What a shock.

 

[pantherclub]

CNN and Fox News now both carrying the hearings live.

Not a peep out of MSNBC. What a shock.

we get it guy, seriously we get it

 

[sporthenry]

So lets find the defense attache.

 

[sporthenry]

Dammit, does anyone really care about the spontaneous protest b/s

 

[jamny]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

How many times do the various intelligence agencies have to state that the talking points Rice advanced on the Sunday morning shows were consistent with the talking points they reviewed, edited, and cleared?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Issa and Cummings already taking shots at each other. Our government is such a mess.

Issa is such a POS.

 

[jamny]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

How many times do the various intelligence agencies have to state that the talking points Rice advanced on the Sunday morning shows were consistent with the talking points they reviewed, edited, and cleared?

That's not what I asked.

and where can I watch/hear the testimony without interruption?

 

[sporthenry]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

How many times do the various intelligence agencies have to state that the talking points Rice advanced on the Sunday morning shows were consistent with the talking points they reviewed, edited, and cleared?

That's not what I asked.

and where can I watch/hear the testimony without interruption?

CSPAN3 has it or do you mean the interruptions by the politicians.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

How many times do the various intelligence agencies have to state that the talking points Rice advanced on the Sunday morning shows were consistent with the talking points they reviewed, edited, and cleared?

That's not what I asked. and where can I watch/hear the testimony without interruption?

c-span2

 

[jamny]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

How many times do the various intelligence agencies have to state that the talking points Rice advanced on the Sunday morning shows were consistent with the talking points they reviewed, edited, and cleared?

That's not what I asked. and where can I watch/hear the testimony without interruption?

c-span2

cspan2 didn't have it on before. They might cut away again. Does directv have cspan3?

 

[sporthenry]

Now I know why our government can't get anything done. B/c we hold a hearing and haven't done barely any due diligence on any side.

 

[sporthenry]

FEST has nothing to do with the fighting. Certainly 24 days was too long but making FEST into something that could have helped with the fighting is insincere.

That team, these counterterrorism officials argue, could have helped the FBI gain access to the site in Benghazi faster. It ultimately took the FBI 24 days.

"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," according to one intelligence source. "Counterterrorism professionals were not consulted and a decision was taken to send the FBI on its own without the enablers that would have allowed its agents to gain access to the site in Benghazi in a timely manner." The FBI team did not get on the ground in Benghazi for several weeks after the attack and at that point any "evidence" had been rifled through by looters and journalists.

"A better response approach could have certainly allowed the FBI to access the site much sooner than the 24 days it would eventually take," a source in the counterterrorism community said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/02/sources-emails-point-to-communication-breakdown-in-obama-administration-during/#ixzz2SirfUOvQ

 

[Fennis]

Nice, basically smearing their credibility before they even speak. Good job.

So we shouldn't hear both sides? Sounds good.

Of course we should, but don't slam them before they even get the chance to speak. If what they say is untrue, allow that to be revealed in the questioning process. Seemed like an intimidation tactic to me.

Its grandstanding. Members of congress want camera time more than anything else.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Its grandstanding. Members of congress want camera time more than anything else.

Yep. This whole thing is totally embarrassing for both sides.

 

[sporthenry]

Its grandstanding. Members of congress want camera time more than anything else.

Yep. This whole thing is totally embarrassing for both sides.

Although a couple of the lesser ranking guys have actually been very respectful and had thoughtful questions.

 

[Lutherman2112]

In other Senate news: Senate cafeteria dining location (the American Grill located in the Dirksen/Hart Ground Floor Connecting Corridor) has changed it's lunch special due to a lack of fresh ingredients. The Blue Plate Bombshell Special will be replaced the the Darrell Issa Nothingburger.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Benghazi Hearing: Your Government at Work
May 8, 2013 12:00pm

This is the strangest thing …

As today’s big Benghazi hearing gets underway, Republicans are saying Ambassador Thomas Pickering – the co-chairman of the State Department’s committee investigating of the Benghazi attack – has refused to testify today.

The State Department says the opposite is true – that Pickering wanted to testify but Republicans would not let him.
“Ambassador Pickering volunteered to appear,” a State Department official tells ABC News. “But [Government Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Darrell] Issa said no.”

“That is 100 percent untrue,” says Issa spokesman Frederick Hill.
In fact, Hill has released letters dated February 22 inviting Pickering, and the other co-chairman of the investigation, former Joint Chiefs Chair retired Adm. Michael Mullen, to testify at today’s hearing.

“Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill tells ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”

But the State Department says Pickering is ready to go right now – and happy to testify today.

“If Darrell Issa offers Pickering a chair, he will be there today,” the State Department official tells ABC News. “The only reason Pickering isn’t there is because Issa said no.”

As the hearing was starting, we put that offer to the Committee.

“If Ambassador Pickering has reversed himself and wants to testify, we would welcome him at a future date,” Hill said.

How about today?

Hill said it is too late. The Committee still has not received Pickering’s offer to testify and, even if it comes now, the Committee has a “three-day rule” that requires witnesses be locked in three days in advance to give Committee members adequate time to prepare. Hill acknowledged that rule can be waived, but that won’t happen today.

Bottom line: neither Pickering nor Mullen, who led the official State Department inquiry into the U.S. response to the Benghazi attack will be on hand at the hearing, at which security officers plan to say the State Department stood in the way of deploying additional security officers as the consulate in Libya came under attack.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I didn't watch this today. Anything newsworthy happen? Weren't there supposed to be whistleblowers and stuff?

 

[badmojo1006]

Did anything happen today or was it just Issa blowing a lot of hot air?

 

[Apple Jack]

Polling numbers for Congress should be looking pret-ty, pret-ty good in the wake of this horror show.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Did anything happen today or was it just Issa blowing a lot of hot air?

 

[Novice2]

I didn't watch this today. Anything newsworthy happen? Weren't there supposed to be whistleblowers and stuff?

Did anything happen today or was it just Issa blowing a lot of hot air?

Polling numbers for Congress should be looking pret-ty, pret-ty good in the wake of this horror show.

No1cares

 

[HellToupee]

Haven't you guys heard the Arias verdict is in?

 

[Lutherman2112]

This is gonna get ugly tomorrow

 

[Lutherman2112]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

 

[timschochet]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

 

[HellToupee]

"death is part of life"

 

[Todd Andrews]

BENGAYZHI!!!1!!!!!!

 

[Slapdash]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) wrote Tuesday he believes major revelations about the lead up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are imminent, in a Facebook message:“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi. We’re going to find a system failure before, during, and after the attacks.“We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.“The bond that has been broken between those who serve us in harms way and the government they serve is huge — and to me every bit as damaging as Watergate.”

 

[sporthenry]

"death is part of life"

That was one of the strangest tangents I've ever heard. And that doesn't even take into account he used up about 20% of his time rambling on about that.

 

[Politician Spock]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

So many are willing to look to the extreme view point because of their party affiliation. Some people need to let go of the idea that there is something to see here, and other people need to let go of the idea that there is nothing to see here. I really wish that oversight and accountability of the government had nothing to do with either party. Parties have agendas, and agendas should have no part of oversight and accountability.

 

[tommyboy]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

Answer this then. Why in sep 12 did Hillary Clinton state as fact that the attack was due to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. She repeated thus at ambassador Stevens funeral as did Obama several times including on letterman. Then 5 days later Susan rice goes on national TV multiple times and repeats the lie.Why the lies? What are/were they trying to hide?And why is the man that made the video which had nothing to do with this still in jail?

 

[tommyGunZ]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

Answer this then. Why in sep 12 did Hillary Clinton state as fact that the attack was due to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. She repeated thus at ambassador Stevens funeral as did Obama several times including on letterman. Then 5 days later Susan rice goes on national TV multiple times and repeats the lie.Why the lies? What are/were they trying to hide?And why is the man that made the video which had nothing to do with this still in jail?

Was there conflicting info? It makes ZERO sense to lie about something like this - it's not like the truth wasn't going to surface. It would be beyond stupid. And Hillary and Obama may be a lot of things, but politically stupid they are not.

 

[timschochet]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

Answer this then. Why in sep 12 did Hillary Clinton state as fact that the attack was due to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. She repeated thus at ambassador Stevens funeral as did Obama several times including on letterman. Then 5 days later Susan rice goes on national TV multiple times and repeats the lie.Why the lies? What are/were they trying to hide?And why is the man that made the video which had nothing to do with this still in jail?

Usually when I hear about situations like this, I begin with a premise, which I find is much more often true than not: the government is much more likely to screw up than to do something deliberately wrong. Then I add a second premise: if/when the government screws up, they are much more likely to try to cover up the screw up than ever admit they screwed up, and this continues no matter how absurd things get.

If you're willing to accept these two premises, then you're unlikely to ever believe in too many conspiracy theories. Now I don't know the details of this specific situation because it's rather dull to me- it just seems like a repeat of so many other conspiracy/scandals over the past several years. Like I wrote before, they all tend to run together for me. But I think it's safe to apply my two premises when answering your question: they blamed the video because they screwed up. Then after they knew it was a screw up, they continued to blame the video because they didn't want to admit they screwed up about the video. And that's that.

 

[timschochet]

Also want to add that tommyboy's post, which asks what he considers to be unanswerable or "gotcha!" questions, are typical of the conspiracy mindset. Often the implied facts in these questions are faulty- (I have no idea if they are in this case.) But a lot of the faulty "facts" always involve timeline questions: why did such and such say this on this date?Two famous conspiracy examples: it was reported in several sources that JFK's murder was called in to the Dallas police 15 minutes before the murder took place. And it was reported in several sources that Vince Foster's murder was reported to the Washington police 10 minutes before the murder took place. Both of these turned out to have no basis in fact, but they were used by all sorts of people to justify conspiracy beliefs.

 

[drummer]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

Answer this then. Why in sep 12 did Hillary Clinton state as fact that the attack was due to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. She repeated thus at ambassador Stevens funeral as did Obama several times including on letterman. Then 5 days later Susan rice goes on national TV multiple times and repeats the lie.Why the lies? What are/were they trying to hide?And why is the man that made the video which had nothing to do with this still in jail?

Usually when I hear about situations like this, I begin with a premise, then continue to bore the hell outta everybody

 

[Widbil83]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

How many times do the various intelligence agencies have to state that the talking points Rice advanced on the Sunday morning shows were consistent with the talking points they reviewed, edited, and cleared?

If only they talked to the people from all those agencies who testified today who were actually on the ground saying the "YouTube video" was bs. I would love to hear from Susan Rice today.

 

[drummer]

Has Susan Rice testified in any of these hearings?

How many times do the various intelligence agencies have to state that the talking points Rice advanced on the Sunday morning shows were consistent with the talking points they reviewed, edited, and cleared?

If only they talked to the people from all those agencies who testified today who were actually on the ground saying the "YouTube video" was bs. I would love to hear from Susan Rice today.

Just give her a call. Don't those email's you get from the fringe groups you get in your inbox have her hacked mobile phone number?

 

[bigbottom]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

Answer this then. Why in sep 12 did Hillary Clinton state as fact that the attack was due to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. She repeated thus at ambassador Stevens funeral as did Obama several times including on letterman. Then 5 days later Susan rice goes on national TV multiple times and repeats the lie.Why the lies? What are/were they trying to hide?And why is the man that made the video which had nothing to do with this still in jail?

Usually when I hear about situations like this, I begin with a premise, which I find is much more often true than not: the government is much more likely to screw up than to do something deliberately wrong. Then I add a second premise: if/when the government screws up, they are much more likely to try to cover up the screw up than ever admit they screwed up, and this continues no matter how absurd things get. If you're willing to accept these two premises, then you're unlikely to ever believe in too many conspiracy theories. Now I don't know the details of this specific situation because it's rather dull to me- it just seems like a repeat of so many other conspiracy/scandals over the past several years. Like I wrote before, they all tend to run together for me. But I think it's safe to apply my two premises when answering your question: they blamed the video because they screwed up. Then after they knew it was a screw up, they continued to blame the video because they didn't want to admit they screwed up about the video. And that's that.

What was the screw-up? Isn't determining the nature and scope of the screw-up a valid point of inquiry?

 

[timschochet]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

Answer this then. Why in sep 12 did Hillary Clinton state as fact that the attack was due to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. She repeated thus at ambassador Stevens funeral as did Obama several times including on letterman. Then 5 days later Susan rice goes on national TV multiple times and repeats the lie.Why the lies? What are/were they trying to hide?And why is the man that made the video which had nothing to do with this still in jail?

Usually when I hear about situations like this, I begin with a premise, which I find is much more often true than not: the government is much more likely to screw up than to do something deliberately wrong. Then I add a second premise: if/when the government screws up, they are much more likely to try to cover up the screw up than ever admit they screwed up, and this continues no matter how absurd things get. If you're willing to accept these two premises, then you're unlikely to ever believe in too many conspiracy theories. Now I don't know the details of this specific situation because it's rather dull to me- it just seems like a repeat of so many other conspiracy/scandals over the past several years. Like I wrote before, they all tend to run together for me. But I think it's safe to apply my two premises when answering your question: they blamed the video because they screwed up. Then after they knew it was a screw up, they continued to blame the video because they didn't want to admit they screwed up about the video. And that's that.

What was the screw-up? Isn't determining the nature and scope of the screw-up a valid point of inquiry?

Theoretically, I suppose. But the "inquiry" is inevitably so partisan in nature that the whole thing becomes a political circus and we (the public) rarely learn anything of value.

 

[Hang 10]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

It does, certainly, seem that way..

It's exactly the opposite. This is a case, like so many others (I compiled a list earlier) in which so many, because of their political beliefs, are willing to look TOO closely at a situation, wanting to find something that really isn't there.

Answer this then. Why in sep 12 did Hillary Clinton state as fact that the attack was due to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. She repeated thus at ambassador Stevens funeral as did Obama several times including on letterman. Then 5 days later Susan rice goes on national TV multiple times and repeats the lie.Why the lies? What are/were they trying to hide?And why is the man that made the video which had nothing to do with this still in jail?

Usually when I hear about situations like this, I begin with a premise, which I find is much more often true than not: the government is much more likely to screw up than to do something deliberately wrong. Then I add a second premise: if/when the government screws up, they are much more likely to try to cover up the screw up than ever admit they screwed up, and this continues no matter how absurd things get. If you're willing to accept these two premises, then you're unlikely to ever believe in too many conspiracy theories. Now I don't know the details of this specific situation because it's rather dull to me- it just seems like a repeat of so many other conspiracy/scandals over the past several years. Like I wrote before, they all tend to run together for me. But I think it's safe to apply my two premises when answering your question: they blamed the video because they screwed up. Then after they knew it was a screw up, they continued to blame the video because they didn't want to admit they screwed up about the video. And that's that.

What was the screw-up? Isn't determining the nature and scope of the screw-up a valid point of inquiry?

Theoretically, I suppose. But the "inquiry" is inevitably so partisan in nature that the whole thing becomes a political circus and we (the public) rarely learn anything of value.

Especially when you dismiss it from the get go.

 

[timschochet]

But why shouldn't I dismiss it from the get go?