Benghazi Scandal: Obama's operation to smear whistleblowers

[_bcspace]

This is how Obama's thugs roll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/08/operation_smear_benghazi_whistleblowers_118312.html

[_ajax18]

It's very frustrating that it has taken so long to expose this cover up. We should have gotten to the bottom of this before the election. Better late than never.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is exactly the kind of propaganda that made me turn my back completely on the Right Wing. Their ideology is driven by idiot hit pieces like these. Just skimming the entire article there isn't a single reference or citation backing up anything the author is saying in her title. Bcspace produces these kinds of "news" pieces all the time from pseudo-news outlets like wnd, csm, Hotair, etc.

She takes for granted that one side of the story is right and starts blindly defending it before the facts are laid out. Before anyone even knows what each side is going to even say! That is essentially the modus operandi of the Right Wing propaganda machine.

[_Kevin Graham]

In other real news...


One of the key challenges for House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and his congressional Republican colleagues yesterday was expectations. There have already been multiple hearings and reports on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and Americans already know what happened. For those willing to look past silly and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, there really aren't any remaining unanswered questions.

But wait, Issa and his friends said, this hearing will be different. Now we have whistleblowers. This is will be The Day Everything Changes. This was a hearing so significant, so monumental, that Republican staffers on Capitol Hill felt the need to make movie posters to help promote it.

Issa over-promised and under-delivered. The dramatic hearing that Republicans and Fox News hoped to use to bring down the Obama presidency and permanently derail Hillary Clinton's still-unknown ambitions did neither -- there's still no conspiracy; there's still no cover-up; there's still no political scandal.

This is not to say we learned nothing from the hearing. When I read through transcripts and watched the back and forth betweeen lawmakers and witnesses last night, it was clear that Gregory Hicks, the former U.S. diplomat in Libya and Issa's star witness, offered details of the attack itself that were riveting and previously unreported. That said, in terms of the larger story, the details may have been fascinating, but they didn't break new ground. Indeed, conservative allegations that Hicks' perspective had been deliberately suppressed as part of a cover-up is absurd -- he'd already spoken at length to the independent panel that investigated the attack.

So what was the point of yesterday's theatrics, beyond giving far-right activists a morale boost and giving Fox News a ratings boost? What do we know now that we didn't know 24 hours ago? Eight months after the attack itself, I know Republicans think there's been a cover-up, but I haven't the foggiest idea what it is they think has been covered up. For all the talk of a political "scandal," no one seems capable of pointing to anything specific that's scandalous. For all the conspiracy theories, there's no underlying conspiracy to be found.

Marc Ambinder noted last night, "There are plenty of intelligent criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Today's Benghazi debate is the classic example of an unintelligent, fairly easy way out of actually engaging." Kevin Drum added:

Was Benghazi mishandled? Maybe. Are there lessons to be learned? Probably. Is there a scandal or a coverup? There's never been any evidence of it, and there still isn't. This is a show that goes on and on without end, but it never delivers a payoff. Issa and his colleagues need to start paying more attention to stuff that actually matters, and give up on the Fox-friendly conspiracy theories that never pan out. Enough's enough.

But is it? That same paragraph could have been written in December. Or February. Or April. It remains true, of course, but it's proving remarkably difficult to dissuade Republicans from their white whale. Maybe, they think, Benghazi hearing #9 will turn up something hearings #1 through #8 missed. Perhaps a little more digging will turn up some shred of evidence that the president's handling of the attack was politically motivated, even though there's no sane reason that explains a political motivation.

Enough should be enough at this point, but if recent history is any guide, the next pointless hearing is just around the corner.

[_Kevin Graham]

GOP Star Witnesses Debunk Right-Wing Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

The “whistleblowers” at today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last September were supposed to break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall, in the eyes of conservatives. Instead, these witness actually served to debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi, leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP:

1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi

Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.

Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.

2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi

House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney, that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.

3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down

One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

4. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board isn’t legitimate

Republicans have been attacking the State Department’s official in-house review of the shortcomings seen before, during, and after the assault in Benghazi. That criticism prompted House Republicans to write their own report. When asked point blank about the recommendations of the Board, however, the witnesses didn’t cooperate with the GOP narrative. “Absolutely,” Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya prior to the assault in Benghazi, answered when asked if he believes implementing the recommendations would improve security. “I had an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.” Hicks, when questioned, said that while he had some issues with the process by which the Board gathered its information, he demurred on criticizing the report itself.

[_cinepro]

This is exactly the kind of propaganda that made me turn my back completely on the Right Wing. Their ideology is driven by idiot hit pieces like these.

Just so I'm clear, were your subsequent citations of "The Maddow Blog" and Thinkprogress done to be ironic, or were you serious?

[_subgenius]

In other real news...

how predictable...KG thinks an opinion piece Maddow's blog fro MSNBC is "real news".

...(snip)...Enough should be enough at this point, but if recent history is any guide, the next pointless hearing is just around the corner.

those who do not want to accept responsibility always utter this kind of nonsense...or they exclaim "what difference does it make?!?"

[_subgenius]

This is exactly the kind of propaganda that made me turn my back completely on the Right Wing. Their ideology is driven by idiot hit pieces like these.

Just so I'm clear, were your subsequent citations of "The Maddow Blog" and Thinkprogress done to be ironic, or were you serious?

+1

[_Res Ipsa]

It's a clown show. Remember back before the election when it was all about Obama? Now that he's reelected, it's all about Clinton? As long as Americans keep electing clowns like Issa, expect the clowning to continue.

[_Kevin Graham]

Just so I'm clear, were your subsequent citations of "The Maddow Blog" and Thinkprogress done to be ironic, or were you serious?

Absolutely. I'd take Maddow over that clown Malkin any day of the week. Your Right Wing media show is full of clowns who do nothing but rage and conjure up conspiracy theories. How many hearings have to disprove your claims before you let the damn thing die?

I notice you didn't take issue with anything in those posts.