Or seven other investigations spanning multiple years and spending millions of dollars only to be told what we already knew from the first investigation. But other than that and the internet, they were the same.
To be fair there was an investigation, errors were found and changes were made if I remember correctly there was little partisan BS in the investigation.
The main difference was we didn't have the internet to bicker over stupidly minor details endlessly with.
Ain't it though?Such a strange coincidence this 4 year old issue would be brought up right in the middle of a presidential campaign.......
:hmm:
Not to downplay Benghazi,
Yeah, and they'll just keep doing it as long as we let them.
The problem is that the level keeps escalating.
An investigation has concluded that showed our people in Libya were in grave danger and that the administration knew they were for a considerable period of time but because it would make it apparent that the policies of the Clinton and Obama administrations in Libya were a failure, it was decided to tell lies to the world while privately the truth was related to members of foreign governments as well as family members. Not the family members of the dead though. They got told a whopper by none other than the greatest pathological liar of the 20th and 21st centuries.
It was only four people this time. We could set a limit on the body count before we say enough is enough or we can complain that the swirls in our latest purchase at Starbucks are not up to snuff.
Christopher Stevens
Sean Smith
Glen Doherty
Tyrone Woods
They gave their lives so that Democrats could remain convinced that their policies in Libya actually worked. Lies told, lies believed.
Sorry about you dead guys. It's just politics. <shrug>
Such a strange coincidence this 4 year old issue would be brought up right in the middle of a presidential campaign.......
:hmm:
Also such a strange coincidence that the American people were lied to during a president's reelection campaign.
I honestly wish there was a truly productive, non partisan look at Benghazi to see what we can do differently in the future. Unfortunately that is too much to ask for in our current environment.
Do you find the death of 4 Americans funny or something?Hopefully this is the last time I have to do this....
BENGHAZI!!!!!
Do you find the death of 4 Americans funny or something?
Ask Gowdy and his cohorts. They're the ones who have simply been using those deaths for their own political gain.
Benghazi conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy
A woman in the crowd floated a new Benghazi conspiracy. “Has someone in the GOP leadership gotten their fingers involved in watering down some of this to benefit Secretary Clinton?” she asked.
Nobody rebutted this idea.
Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party — and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same — and the agitators are as agitated as ever.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d06711fd2125_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
The dangerous delusion that the Americans in Benghazi could have been saved
The fog of war was thick that night, as the report acknowledges: “The Committee was also struck by the sheer number of government officials involved . . . who did not even know there was a separate U.S. facility in Benghazi referred to as the ‘Annex’ or where the Annex was.” Of course they didn’t know: It was a secret CIA base, reportedly for covertly monitoring loose weaponry such as surface-to-air missiles. They don’t list those bases in the real estate section.
The report makes much of State Department waffling over whether a Spain-based Marine rescue unit should wear uniforms or enter Libyan territory in mufti. Easy to ridicule in hindsight, this concern was perfectly legitimate, given the risk of an international incident or misunderstanding amid the chaos. There sure would have been calls for a congressional investigation if some crazy militia took uniformed Marines for invaders and ambushed them.
Same goes for other Monday-morning quarterbacking: Maybe an armed drone would have helped — if the operator didn’t mistake the Libyan militia that evacuated the CIA annex for a hostile force and blow it away. Maybe Special Operations forces could have reinforced the annex — if they didn’t get killed in crossfire approaching a darkened compound whose physical contours were known to only a handful of intelligence personnel.
...
Painful as it is to admit, in Benghazi, the U.S. government, for all its military power, was at the mercy of terrorists who enjoyed every home-field advantage. Of course, it might never have come to that if Obama hadn’t helped overthrow Libya’s dictator to begin with, or if he’d done a better job stabilizing the place and providing security to U.S. diplomats after Moammar Gaddafi was gone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1580c7db5275_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
GOP crazies
Well said.
I've heard three interesting points:
1. They requested additional security over 200 times. All were denied or ignored.
2. Hillary was privately saying terrorism while publicly saying spontaneous response to an American Internet video.
3. The Democrat report cites Donald Trump 23 times. (WTF?)
Hey, at least it's over.
There is zero chance that you will ever convince me that the man who requested additional security ever two hundred times on the record was offered additional security off the record and turned it down. No one should be that credulous, ever.Who is "they"? Chris Stevens was offered additional security by the military and he turned it down. He wanted to keep a friendlier profile at their location to the locals.
There is zero chance that you will ever convince me that the man who requested additional security ever two hundred times on the record was offered additional security off the record and turned it down. No one should be that credulous, ever.
Unnamed sources.
He's on record requesting more security hundreds of times and you want us to believe an unnamed source that he didn't want more security? C'mon man.Point? Political stories regularly have unnamed sources. Multiple news sources reported this.
If you were the one who offered Stevens security and he said no you would go unnamed.
People would accuse you of blaming him.
He's on record requesting more security hundreds of times and you want us to believe an unnamed source that he didn't want more security? C'mon man.
He's on record requesting more security hundreds of times and you want us to believe an unnamed source that he didn't want more security? C'mon man.