House Select Committee Report on Benghazi To Be Released

Husker
Are you sure about this? "I also agree with Chris Steven's widow that the Congress is also partly to blame by CUTTING the budget to defend our emissaries during this chaos we are seeing around the world"
Can you point to when and where in the budget Congress cut funds to defend our embassies?

They underfunded the budget ask. Correction on the original claim...it was Ambassador Steven's sister, not widow. He was engaged to be married at his untimely death.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/index.html

The facts:
According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).
A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.
However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.
Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.
 
LOL the Facts are partisan. Dude you really are trying waay too hard to defend her.

What is partisan for pointing out the SOS went home while attacks against her people were going on? Or do you think it is ok? That she couldn't do anything so what the heck she just went home so she could email chat with her daughter on her private server.

What is partisan for pointing out that a rescue force was kept waiting for 6 hours while her State Dept could not decide what clothes the marines should wear?
OTOH it was partisan for BO Hillary and whoever else was in on it to ecide to blame a video
:whiteflag: I can see you and the media want to " move on". I bet Chris Stevens and all the others would like to move on too
 
What is partisan for pointing out that a rescue force was kept waiting for 6 hours while her State Dept could not decide what clothes the marines should wear?

I suggest you reread your talking points from Brietbart a little more closely.

“The FAST team was sitting on the tarmac with no lift [aircraft]” to Benghazi, said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R.-Ga.). “While they’re there, people are getting them to change clothes. You know? Civilian clothes, then back to military clothes, then back to military clothes, back to civilian–which indicates to me that there was evidently a fight or a disagreement between the DoD and the State Department.”

They were sitting on the tarmac without any aircraft. It's the congressman's interpretation that there was a fight over the clothing and even he didn't try to tie the reason for the 6hr wait to the clothing fight like you just did. So, the facts apparently are that the soldiers changed clothes multiple times and sat on the tarmac for 6hrs. The rest of what you wrote is partisan. Do you notice how you took a "DoD and the State Department" and shrunk it down to the State Department? Do you still claim that your accusations are not partisan because the evidence doesn't support your claim.
 
What would accountability be in this situation? Would this look like taking responsibility?

If it were my organization, this is how accountability would happen:

"Ms. Clinton, I appreciate your willingness to recognize that your actions, or lack thereof, resulted in the death of Americans in Benghazi. You are charged with keeping our Embassy personnel safe, but you failed to do so, and good men died as a result.

Your services are no longer required.

Please hand me your office keys, blackberry, parking pass, and your laptop. The FBI already has your unsecured server, and it will not be returned to you until all information not previously deleted by you is scrubbed clean. The personal items in your office have been boxed-up and the security guard standing behind you will escort you from the building and premises immediately. You will be paid through today, and COBRA documents will be mailed to your home address. Any further communication will be handled by the Human Resources Department. Good luck to you."

No hand shake. Go to lunch and have a toddy to celebrate the improvement made to the organization.
 
Yeah, if every time something goes wrong in the world, we need a leader to say"You're fired!" I think the Republicans have identified the perfect presidential candidate.
 
Husker
According to this report ( as well as a report from 2013) the marines were in cammies ON A PLANE when State flopped around ordering them to change clothes 4 times.
from military.com
"Among these were delays imposed on the 50-man Marine Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team, or FAST, which launched from Rota, Spain, more than 2,000 miles away from Benghazi. The team was loaded onto C-130 aircraft, but held on the ground for three hours before being allowed to take off.

According to the report, Navy Vice Adm. Kurt Tidd, then-director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that the State Department had dithered about how to send forces into Libya without creating a larger international incident.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-marines-response-slowed-uniform-changes.html

this account from daily caller:
"When officials finally got to the topic of rescue planes one State official raised the question of whether Marines on call should be deployed wearing civilian clothing rather than military uniforms.
In response to inquiries Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy justified the comments by saying the American Flags on the uniforms of military personnel might have hampered diplomatic relations"
( WTF there are Americans being killed and State- NOT DOD- is worried about offending Libya?)
"In reality Marines don't actually have American flags on their uniforms but that didn't stop State Department Officials -NOT DOD- from debating the question."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/s...ange-uniforms-4-times-during-benghazi-attack/

So the FAST team sat on a plane for 3 hours while they changed their clothes 4 times. Thanks to State.
In the end the military did not deploy to Benghazi.
 
The long awaited report will be released today..............

Obama skipped his Personal Daily Briefing the next morning. He really didn't give a crap about events in Benghazi. Raising money was more important to him.........

Does the Report account for Obama's whereabouts during the crucial hours?
Where was he at the time?
 
Apparently the Pentagon hid a material witness until the report was published --

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-is-released/article/2595219?custom_click=rss

"Members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi are slated to question a crew chief Wednesday who was stationed in Europe on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack. The interview will take place one day after the committee published the highly-anticipated findings from its more than two-year investigation.

The Pentagon did not grant the select committee's request to interview the witness until after the report was released, Republicans on the committee noted Wednesday morning. Congressional investigators had asked the Defense Department to provide access to the unnamed witness four months earlier....."
 
Does the Report account for Obama's whereabouts during the crucial hours?
Where was he at the time?

The Obama Admin would let you see the alien bodies at Area 51 before they'd release that info. I think he was having sexy time with Michelle, but that's speculation on my part.

By the way, I hear that Hillary is a big UFO enthusiast and has promised (along free college, free tampons, free everything... & no tax increases except for the rich and businesses) that she'll swing open the doors and the let the light shine on what the guberment actually knows about aliens/ufos.
 
But what if it turns out she is the alien?

hillary-clinton-space-aliens.jpg
 
Husker
According to this report ( as well as a report from 2013) the marines were in cammies ON A PLANE when State flopped around ordering them to change clothes 4 times.
from military.com
"Among these were delays imposed on the 50-man Marine Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team, or FAST, which launched from Rota, Spain, more than 2,000 miles away from Benghazi. The team was loaded onto C-130 aircraft, but held on the ground for three hours before being allowed to take off.

According to the report, Navy Vice Adm. Kurt Tidd, then-director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that the State Department had dithered about how to send forces into Libya without creating a larger international incident.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-marines-response-slowed-uniform-changes.html

this account from daily caller:
"When officials finally got to the topic of rescue planes one State official raised the question of whether Marines on call should be deployed wearing civilian clothing rather than military uniforms.
In response to inquiries Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy justified the comments by saying the American Flags on the uniforms of military personnel might have hampered diplomatic relations"
( WTF there are Americans being killed and State- NOT DOD- is worried about offending Libya?)
"In reality Marines don't actually have American flags on their uniforms but that didn't stop State Department Officials -NOT DOD- from debating the question."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/s...ange-uniforms-4-times-during-benghazi-attack/

So the FAST team sat on a plane for 3 hours while they changed their clothes 4 times. Thanks to State.
In the end the military did not deploy to Benghazi.
What difference does it make?

A big one.
 
I wouldn't necessarily equate something "going wrong" with people "getting killed".
I think we could have pretty much fired every secretary of state in my lifetime, starting late '59, with state department policies and practices resulting in death in Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korean waters, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Beirut, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan again, and a lot I'd have to Google. ....
 
People were killed in Embassy's in those countries because the Secretary of State didn't provide enough security?
 
An omniscient and honorable secretary of state could have saved us lots of problems in all of those places.
 
I appreciate you stating that Hillary is not honorable. You may have said that many times in the past. I don't recall.

I'm okay with lumping them all together despite differing circumstances. We can't go back and fire the others or Hillary. We do have an opportunity to hold Ms. Clinton accountable, however.
 
I honestly think in most circumstances, had she been omniscient, Hillary would have done the right thing. Benghazi for example, where I think she showed no lack of dilligence or moral failing to prevent Chris Stevens from putting himself in harm's way at a consulate, not an embassy.

Since Trump took the time to dream up Trump University and help it plot ways to scam the unwary, he's one we could hardly expect to act honorably. Sure it's dishonorable to lie, shift blame and seek an expedient way out of unexpected trouble. It's worse to maliciously scheme up ways to screw people over.
 
Croc
I appreciate your loyalty to Hillary and that you think she would have done the right thing
Yet now we find out from Huma that Hillary lied under oath about speaking to the survivors of the attack
Apparently she only spoke to one and that was much later and only because Huma prodded her to.
Don't you think someone who would want to do the "right things would care enough to speak to the people who had survived that horrible ordeal?
Or at the very least NOT lie about speaking to them?
 
Last edited:
Don't you think someone who would want to do the "right things would care enough to speak to the people who had survived that horrible ordeal?
Or at the very least NOT lie about speaking to them?
Now that you mention it, I would hope for kinder, smarter, more honest and compassionate leadership. And before we leave Fantasy Island, I'll have that and $600 plastic surgery to make me look like 6'2" version of Tom Cruise and my wife to look a young Bridget Bardot.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think in most circumstances, had she been omniscient, Hillary would have done the right thing.

During last week's vice presidential debate, Biden said the White House wasn't told of a request for additional security at the mission in Benghazi the month before the incident.

State Department official Eric Nordstrom, who served as a regional security officer in Tripoli until July, told a congressional committee that he was turned down when he requested an extension of a 16-member security support team that was scheduled to leave Libya in August (2012).

The White House may not have known, but the State Department did. Who was running the State Dept? Obviously, you wouldn't have to be "all knowing" to rely on specific information presented to you. The decision Clinton/Clinton's people made with the information at hand was terrible, and people died.
 
iatrogenic, in the wrong circumstance a decision to drive to the grocery store or go for a swim can have fatal consequences. There were dozens of decision-points from Congressional funding down to the level of Embassy staff that could have prevented what happened. Sure, in retrospect some were mistakes.

But if you are Secretary of State in 2012 and you sit down to make a list of daily priorities, how far down is "consulate security" in Libya assuming you don't know four people are about to be killed? If it's high on you list, you have to be omnicient, incredibly lucky with your attention or a micromanager in a job where your focus should be on big issues.
 
The question is not whether HRC should have done something that day (before the attack, which would have been great but not foreseeable as to specific time). The question has to do with the overall management of the department and specific security weaknesses that were identified but not addressed prior to the attack.

To Wit:

THOMAS PICKERING,
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: It was deficient in security supplies. It was probably deficient in the security manning of the post.

There were ongoing security problems in Benghazi, which we felt should have alerted the department to deal with those issues. Many of the questions presented to the department were answered in the negative, when they probably should have been positively responded to.

MARGARET WARNER: And are you saying there were requests for additional security there and they were denied?

THOMAS PICKERING: There was an ongoing request for additional security, and a number of them were not responded to properly and positively, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: The Pickering review cited — quote — “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at the State Department, a consulate that was severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment, and a short-term staff rotation that resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity and mission capacity.”

Pickering said the review board closely examined whether the U.S. military could have scrambled forces elsewhere to the attack site.

THOMAS PICKERING: And it was very clear to us that the nearest assistance was called upon right away, but the requirement to mobilize aircraft and move those Marines in Spain wasn’t sufficient to get it there in time.

 
RICE ON "THIS WEEK"
From: Hillary Clinton
To: Robert Russo Date: 2012-10-16 09:22 Subject: RICE ON "THIS WEEK"
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05796433 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL

From: H <[email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:22 PM
To: '[email protected] ' Subject: Fw: Rice on "This Week" Pls print.

From: Sullivan, Jacob 3 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:21 PM
To: H Subject: Rice on "This Week"

Here is Susan on this week. She wasn't asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved. The only troubling sentence relates to the investigation, specifically: "And we'll see when the investigation unfolds whether what was -- what transpired in Benghazi might have unfolded differently in different circumstances." But she got pushed there.

Waiting on other transcripts.

"For more on what happened and why, let's bring in the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice. Dr. Rice, thank you for joining us. RICE: Good to be with you, Jake.

TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We're hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They're saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What's the latest information?

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired. But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05796433 Date: 11/30/2015 We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there. We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

TAPPER: Why was there such a security breakdown? Why was there not better security at the compound in Benghazi? Why were there not U.S. Marines at the embassy in Tripoli? RICE: Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence with our personnel... TAPPER: Not substantial enough, though, right?
RICE: ... with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them. It obviously didn't prove sufficient to the -- the nature of the attack and sufficient in that -- in that moment. And that's why, obviously, we have reinforced our remaining presence in Tripoli and why the president has very -- been very clear that in Libya and throughout the region we are going to call on the governments, first of all, to assume their responsibilities to protect our facilities and our personnel, and we're reinforcing our facilities and our -- our embassies where possible...
 
Last edited:
ia
we heard it when Rice said it right after the attack but man reading it again with all we know Hillary State and BO knew is chilling that they all were so willing to lie.

And STILL people will vote for Hillary. :whiteflag:
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top