The Benghazi hearings live

[TemplarKormac]

Heads are gonna roll! This is absolutely devastating testimony!

 

[Mustang]

I see Fox and CNN are covering it live but BSNBC is mia

Not surprised

Undoubtedly, more people are interested in what's happening in Cleveland, OH.

 

[Meister]

I see Fox and CNN are covering it live but BSNBC is mia

Not surprised

Undoubtedly, more people are interested in what's happening in Cleveland, OH.

Yes, because eveybody knows that BSNBC is the benchmark with the amount viewers at any given time.

 

[depotoo]

I did not get to listen to about the listen 15-20 minutes of the hearing but here are the points I took away from what I heard.

1. First, why is there continued stonewalling as to the clearance of information for one of the whistleblowers, so they were not able to testify today?

2. Who was responsible for telling the DS to back down in Tripoli and why as that is their primary role?

3. Why was Hicks told not to privately meet with the ARB board?

4. Why was the Direct Action Committee kept out of response meeting when they hda the direct knowledge of what happened and were there?

5. Why were not all witnesses directly involved interviewed?

6. Who ok'd temporary facilities not having to have the same level of security as well as enforcements as permanent facilities did?

7. Who told Col. Gibson's response team not to board the plane for Benghazi? Military heads still deny that order.

8. Defense attache stated there would be no military response, even before the situation was fully assessed and permission of the government of Libya to use airspace was never asked for. Why?

9. Why was Hicks never given a copy of his interview or a final report from the ARB as was reuired so he could confirm his testimony was represented to them properly? Why were others also denied a copy?

10. Video of Kennedy continued to push, just as Rice did, that the best info they had was that it was due to a video - not a terrorist attack for days.

11. What lost evidence was there due to Rice's continued denial of it being a terrorist attack, as it was claimed by the Libyan President, upsetting them and thus the FBI had to wait for that support from Libya for 17 days to be able to get to Benghazi? and the gov't also did not secure the area for us due to what they felt was a slap in the face.

12. Why was the First Response Team told not to respond even though they were the closest in Tripoli?

13. Why were 2 individuals reprimanded even though they were not allowed to review what the ARB stated their testimony actually was, which resulted in their reprimands?

14. Why was Hick's never interviewed by the FBI?

15. Why was that post continued to even be allowed due to the degree of conflict and past actual IED's that had hit continued to be manned?

 

[Meister]

Well..no.

They did not.

They were pretty quick about what happened.

And essentially you folks are down to parsing words to conflate some sort of conspiracy.

Good god man !!!! Susan Rice the fuck they were quick,quick to tell us bull shit.

How many days after did Rice go on 5 Sunday morning shows and what she said is a long way from what happened. Let alone what Obama said at the UN. did your parents teach you anything about integrity?

Read the rules..ace.

No family.

No family member was insulted, Sallow.

 

[boedicca]

I did not get to listen to about the listen 15-20 minutes of the hearing but here are the points I took away from what I heard.

1. First, why is there continued stonewalling as to the clearance of information for one of the whistleblowers, so they were not able to testify today?

2. Who was responsible for telling the DS to back down in Tripoli and why as that is their primary role?

3. Why was Hicks told not to privately meet with the ARB board?

4. Why was the Direct Action Committee kept out of response meeting when they hda the direct knowledge of what happened and were there?

5. Why were not all witnesses directly involved interviewed?

6. Who ok'd temporary facilities not having to have the same level of security as well as enforcements as permanent facilities did?

7. Who told Col. Gibson's response team not to board the plane for Benghazi? Military heads still deny that order.

8. Defense attache stated there would be no military response, even before the situation was fully assessed and permission of the government of Libya to use airspace was never asked for. Why?

9. Why was Hicks never given a copy of his interview or a final report from the ARB as was reuired so he could confirm his testimony was represented to them properly? Why were others also denied a copy?

10. Video of Kennedy continued to push, just as Rice did, that the best info they had was that it was due to a video - not a terrorist attack for days.

11. What lost evidence was there due to Rice's continued denial of it being a terrorist attack, as it was claimed by the Libyan President, upsetting them and thus the FBI had to wait for that support from Libya for 17 days to be able to get to Benghazi? and the gov't also did not secure the area for us due to what they felt was a slap in the face.

12. Why was the First Response Team told not to respond even though they were the closest in Tripoli?

13. Why were 2 individuals reprimanded even though they were not allowed to review what the ARB stated their testimony actually was, which resulted in their reprimands?

14. Why was Hick's never interviewed by the FBI?

15. Why was that post continued to even be allowed due to the degree of conflict and past actual IED's that had hit continued to be manned?

There is one all purpose answer to these:

The overriding objective is to project the Obama and Hillary narratives.

 

[boedicca]

Hmmm...this bit is not good for Hillary:

1:19 pm Rep. James Langford (R-OK) asks Hicks and Nordstrom whether security was adequate at Benghazi. Answer from Nordstrom: No. They did not meet the minimum standards. Nordstrom testifies that only the Secretary of State can grant waivers for facilities that do not meet the minimum standards. That’s BIG.

The PJ Tatler » Benghazi Hearings Live Blog

 

[depotoo]

Hmmm...this bit is not good for Hillary:

1:19 pm Rep. James Langford (R-OK) asks Hicks and Nordstrom whether security was adequate at Benghazi. Answer from Nordstrom: No. They did not meet the minimum standards. Nordstrom testifies that only the Secretary of State can grant waivers for facilities that do not meet the minimum standards. That’s BIG.

The PJ Tatler » Benghazi Hearings Live Blog

That's where that temp facilities thing comes in. Who was it that actually approved it, was it the SEcretary of State, as it is implied, only they have that authority?
I bet we don't get that answer any time soon.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Did Mr. Issa just call Mrs. Maloney a liar?

 

[depotoo]

I think it sad and interesting that suddenly Hick's was questioned on his management style after he questioned why Rice was going around telling it was a video. And he has been demoted as well. And this after many years of nothing but commendations, even from the President, himself.

 

[BlindBoo]

Eye witnesses who were in Tripoli!

So when do the Repubs start their impeachment hearing over the CIA Talking points?

 

[tinydancer]

I think it sad and interesting that suddenly Hick's was questioned on his management style after he questioned why Rice was going around telling it was a video. And he has been demoted as well. And this after many years of nothing but commendations, even from the President, himself.

Loyal employee for 22 years from what I have read about him.

 

[LilOlLady]

We have found out that Ambassador Stevens was taken to an enemy controlled Hospital WHOW!! and that Hillary Clinton knew that is was a terrorist attack right from the start and had nothing to do with an internet video.

What difference does it make? Four Americans are dead.

 

[depotoo]

I think it sad and interesting that suddenly Hick's was questioned on his management style after he questioned why Rice was going around telling it was a video. And he has been demoted as well. And this after many years of nothing but commendations, even from the President, himself.

Loyal employee for 22 years from what I have read about him.

Yes, and his list of commendations for service was long, and even recent ones directly after the attack- before he dared question. It was so heart wrenching listening to the two that were in Tripoli while this was going on and their talking about it broke them both up.
Here is a link to 2 hours of the hearing for those that missed it, sadly it is far from inclusive of the entire thing -
Committee On Oversight & Government Reform

 

[tinydancer]

I think it sad and interesting that suddenly Hick's was questioned on his management style after he questioned why Rice was going around telling it was a video. And he has been demoted as well. And this after many years of nothing but commendations, even from the President, himself.

Loyal employee for 22 years from what I have read about him.

Yes, and his list of commendations for service was long, and even recent ones directly after the attack- before he dared question. It was so heart wrenching listening to the two that were in Tripoli while this was going on and their talking about it broke them both up.
Here is a link to 2 hours of the hearing for those that missed it, sadly it is far from inclusive of the entire thing -
Committee On Oversight & Government Reform

I'm listening to clips of the testimony of the witnesses on Levin now. It's not easy listening to them.

 

[asterism]

The republicans are on the attack and the dems are circling the wagons.
The water will be so muddy that the truth will never see the light of day.
In other words, politics as usual.

What truth?

The republicans are making a huge deal out of a TV appearance. And one that essentially parroted CIA talking points and came with caveats. There was NO attempt to deceive anyone on the part of the Administration.

The CIA, however, may be a different story.

But that's what you guys don't really care about.

There are three real live issues here:

-Were the CIA holding militants prisoner?
-Was it wise to open a consulate when the area was not safe?
-Why does congress not provide adequate funding for security?

Bullshit

The key new disclosure is that senior levels of the White House and State Department were closely involved in the rewriting of the talking points. Previously, Obama administration officials had strongly suggested that the talking points were developed almost exclusively by intelligence officials.

The Benghazi talking points: What?s known and unknown - The Washington Post

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.

CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? - CNN.com

 

[peach174]

It was a big eye opener as to how the Dems are so cold and callous about fellow Americans who were murdered.
They are about protecting Hillary and Obama and Rice rather than wanting to get to bottom of things and what really happened there.
If they think so little of their fellow workers who work for the government, what do they think of us?
Were nothing more than bugs who give them their money.
That's very frightening and chilling.

 

[depotoo]

The republicans are on the attack and the dems are circling the wagons.
The water will be so muddy that the truth will never see the light of day.
In other words, politics as usual.

What truth?

The republicans are making a huge deal out of a TV appearance. And one that essentially parroted CIA talking points and came with caveats. There was NO attempt to deceive anyone on the part of the Administration.

The CIA, however, may be a different story.

But that's what you guys don't really care about.

There are three real live issues here:

-Were the CIA holding militants prisoner?
-Was it wise to open a consulate when the area was not safe?
-Why does congress not provide adequate funding for security?

Bullshit

The key new disclosure is that senior levels of the White House and State Department were closely involved in the rewriting of the talking points. Previously, Obama administration officials had strongly suggested that the talking points were developed almost exclusively by intelligence officials.

The Benghazi talking points: What?s known and unknown - The Washington Post

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.

CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? - CNN.com

It does not matter whether there was less. According to the State Dept. itself as well as the findings in the State Department's own investigative report (the ARB) regarding Benghazi, budget was not an issue for added security for Benghazi. Period. Quit trying to spin.

As one of the Officer's testified today, money is not the answer, but better is.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You nutters couldn't wait for today. Now you can't wait for tonight and tomorrow so you can be told what to think about what happened today.

 

[depotoo]

You nutters couldn't wait for today. Now you can't wait for tonight and tomorrow so you can be told what to think about what happened today.

You only wish that were true...