5 of 8 Republicans skip Benghazi hearing; complain about lack of information on Benghazi

reply to post by Connector

Also, some more tid-bits, the administration acknowledged the attack was indeed terrorist in nature on Sept 28th. 5 days before the first debate.

Not really. POTUS used Slick Willy's approach(did not have sex with that woman... ie certain acts he did not seem to think were sex but the thing is what is the meaning of "is"?) and worded his statement so he acknowledged what the WH would do in the case of terrorist acts but didn't quite go so far as to declare the incident as a terrorist act, and Susan Rice blamed it on the video and of course we know there is proof of that. The WH KNEW what was happening and likely saw it going down live from the drone and likely someone quite possibley the POTUS called a STAND DOWN and let people get killed to cover his sorry azz, and then likely blackmailed Petraeus with the affair, which in itself may have been a setup a la Bohemian Grove Eyes Wide Shut Syndrome, and Petraeus decided to declare himself unfit due to the affair and so there was an attempt to avoid testimony, because he would either have to lie under oath to protect the Prez and/.or himself or others who have been forced to do treasonous acts under a treasonous Prez, or Petraeus was always involved in such things, or the real dirt would come out, he is likely CFR but I have not looked that one up.


Oh wait, here's an interesting tidbit

Petraeus was not asked to testify under oath, King said.

www.cnn.com...

here's more

That matches what Petraeus told Kyra Phillips of HLN, CNN's sister network. He said his resignation was solely a result of his extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. He added that he never passed classified information to her.

Prior to Friday's hearings, it was thought that Petraeus would tell lawmakers that the CIA knew soon after the attack that Ansar al Sharia was responsible for it, according to an official with knowledge of the case. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.

This smells like a coverup of epic proportions and Petraeus is involved and telling only what he can get away with. Is he protecting the Prez, and why?

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
regardless of this little non story why are they having classified meetings about it instead of just addressing the public with the info?

Why are they hiding behind closed doors with their info?
sounds like a lot of scheming to me

The meetings are classified because they are still lying. There was no Terrorist attack. It was nothing but an attempt to free their illegally detained people. Since when is a jailbreak a terrorist attack? The reasons why they keep it secret are numerous.

So expressive , aggressive!, though I understand where the aggression comes from. Every'thing is for a reason. There's no good reason. I'm sure you understand.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by jjkenobi

 

A predictable and boring argument that holds no substance. Schedules for these people are always tentative. Let's try that again shall we?

Benghazi documents available to senators only when they are out of town
thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Under pressure from senators, the State Department is allowing some lawmakers to look at cables and other documents related to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, but only today and tomorrow, when most senators are not in Washington.

and

"Funny since no member is in town," the aide said. "The timing and limited access clearly demonstrates the administration cares more about playing politics with the tragedy than accepting responsibility."

Article goes on to say staffers not allowed to view material.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

The WH KNEW what was happening and likely saw it going down live from the drone and likely someone quite possibley the POTUS called a STAND DOWN and let people get killed to cover his sorry azz, and then likely blackmailed Petraeus with the affair, which in itself may have been a setup a la Bohemian Grove Eyes Wide Shut Syndrome, and Petraeus decided to declare himself unfit due to the affair and so there was an attempt to avoid testimony, because he would either have to lie under oath to protect the Prez and/.or himself or others who have been forced to do treasonous acts under a treasonous Prez, or Petraeus was always involved in such things, or the real dirt would come out, he is likely CFR but I have not looked that one up.

Do you realize how insane and illogical that sounds?
Plus, not once in that insane delusional conjecture do you accuse the president of doing anything ILLEGAL.
What are you people trying to accuse him of? NOT telling CLASSIFIED things to the public? Not calling something a terrorist attack? None of that is illegal....
And what is "let people get killed to cover his ass" supposed to mean....what's he trying to cover. It makes no damned sense.

You people sound bat-# crazy(and not just people on this website, many mainstream republicans are saying these things). I'm not saying this in an offensive manner. I'm just trying to let you know.

The richest? man in Babylon.
Lebonese blonde.
What a strange world.
Ahhh.....Mmmmm-aH.

reply to post by Kali74


Can someone clarify this for me?

Are they saying they need information in order to conduct the hearings (i.e. ask questions, and find out the "truth" - in quotes, because this is the goverment after all), and so they didn't attend the hearings because they didn't attend the preliminary meetings (the informations sessions or intel/sec briefings) that led up to the hearings??

Were they denied access to information? Or were dirty tricks involved (rescheduling meetings to work against the time constraints of those senators) that prevented them from learning about the situation?

Doesn't coming out and saying this, make them look irresponsible as Senators?

Just asking. I'm a little confused

Originally posted by rickymouse
S&F for bringing this up. Seems like the Republicans just want something to bitch about. If they were truly interested in finding things out they would be there. If they have the facts from being their they can't spread rumors, seems like in congress you can't say something that you KNOW is false but if you don't know you can keep blabbing.

Yep. Go figure, huh?

I guess Benghazi-mania isn't really such a big deal after all.

reply to post by sumgai


Would you miss a classified briefing on something to hold a press conference, complaining you weren't getting enough information on the very thing the classified briefing was about?

reply to post by milominderbinder


I think it is a big deal just not in the manner the hissy fit by the Right is portraying. We will probably never know either, considering the level of involvement that the CIA has in all of it.

reply to post by Kali74


Don't forget to lay down the context.

It is one thing to infer the Senator is calling for accountability and raising questions but not showing up because they're somehow too irresponsible.

It is another when that same Senator has already decided that the hearings would be nothing but a theatre and instead took his time to the airwaves getting the message out.

As explained below from a spokesperson of Senator Paul.

Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley tells The Cable: "Sen. Paul didn't need to attend yet another Administration press conference disguised as a classified briefing to know there should have been Marines defending our personnel in Libya, to hear the Administration make the same excuses in private they will make in public. Sen. Paul is focused on demanding answers, demanding those who made these fatal mistake be fired, and fixing the mess this Administration has made. All of that needs to be done in public, for Americans to see and hear."

thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

reply to post by Kali74


Agree.

I am reminded of a song, by Jakson Browne...from the 1980s..."Lives In The Balance"

I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear

You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interests run

On the radio talk shows and TV
You hear one thing again and again
How the USA stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends?
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can't take anymore
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone

And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can't even say the names

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us everything from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars

I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can't be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die

And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire


McCain etal should be ashamed. They no more care about Truth than the "truth" that suits them.

Of course, the Truth shared at the hearing was probably more like a giant jig saw puzzle with pieces missing.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Lately the Democrats have been scheduling all the Benghazi items for a time when they are aware the Republicans will not be present (ie they already have scheduled items).

I find it hard to believe that the Democrats know exactly when the Republicans are going to meet with their lobbyists and sex workers -- all other meetings could be rescheduled, because they are lower priority.

reply to post by Ghost375


It only sounds insane to someone who is a die-hard Obama supporter and apologist. Because you can't accept Obama's Chicago style politics. Keep hiding your head in the sand about it.
At least I'm not posting stuff about Big Foot or Chupacabra or doctored pics of fake ufos. I go for the real conspiracies here. I'm sorry it hurts your widdle feewings. Obama is not the savior of this country.

Of course there is always the chance POTUS was completely unaware of things going on at US consulates abroad, and did not view what the drone recorded. Surely someone saw it, right? Perhaps he was just at a golf game.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Article also goes on to say...

Update #3: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines writes in to contest the GOP aides' assertion that access to the documents was limited. "At the committee's request, the Department has made documents available to the committee professional staff and Members. Committee staff are here during recess, and we provided documents to them," he said. "In fact, Senators, and Committee staff, can review the materials whenever they want, and we have offered to bring the materials up to the committee as many times as Members and staff want, and when they want to review them. We've made this clear to the committee."

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

It only sounds insane to someone who is a die-hard Obama supporter and apologist.

Not really. Sounds pretty insane to me too and I voted Johnson. However, just because I strongly dislike some things that Obama and his Administration has done doesn't mean I'm going blanket my mind with dark fantasy in order to justify an attempted usurp.

reply to post by Kali74


ill give that a solid third
and i refused to vote (debated whether or not to vote for johnson just to try popularizing the idea of alternate parties but didnt agree with some of his policies and thought he would have problems dealing with the inanity and corruption of our other elected representatives so decided i couldnt in good conscience play those kinds of games....and half of me still wishes i had)

WE WANT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS!!! NOW, PRONTO, STAT.


im sorry we cannot attend this meeting at this moment, we dont have enough evidence that something completely major and screwed up has happend. or it that we do it so often we cant tell how bad of a screwup it is yet so we need more time to think, thank you for your time.



is that how the letter went?

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


"Can we impeach Obama with this?"
"Yes, release the classified documents, name our informants!"

Umm

"CIA is all up in this, can we still impeach Obama over this?"
"Nah don't think so."

"What's a Benghazi?"

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Ghost375

 

It only sounds insane to someone who is a die-hard Obama supporter and apologist. Because you can't accept Obama's Chicago style politics.

Will accept Obama's Chicago style politics over the right wings north korea style politics as of late.

you lot are insane...you can't complain of no information, then skip information meetings...and trying to justify this nonsense just makes you lot seem more absurd....there is no justification. It doesn't matter if the classified meeting was little more than some people drawing unicorns with crayons..you got to it, then maybe afterwards complain there still isn't any good info...not skip because maybe there probably wouldn't be anything...

no..thats just flat out insane.

So there it is...like baghdad bob, there is no honesty, no depth, no reality in the words the right are currently speaking...
just someone for the not completely insane to laugh at with their absurd sideshow.