Benghazi on front burner in Congress this week

posted at 10:31 am on November 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Get ready for some high-profile questions into the debacle of the Benghazi terrorist attack this week, as Congress returns from its election break.  The Hill reports that five separate committees will hold hearings or briefings on the sacking of the consulate and security decisions made before and during the attack, to get responses to “questions that remain largely unanswered”:

No fewer than four House and Senate panels plan to hold closed-door briefings with administration officials about the attack this week, while one committee is holding a public hearing. Members of both parties say they expect the Benghazi probe to last well into Obama’s second term. …

The congressional panels holding closed-door briefings with administration officials are the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Tuesday), the Senate homeland security panel (Wednesday) and the House and Senate intelligence panels (Thursday). State Department officials are scheduled to brief the chairmen and ranking members of several House committees with jurisdiction over national security.

Perhaps they can start by asking the White House who made the decision to rely on local militias for the defense of the consulate.  McClatchy asked other diplomats still in Benghazi about their own security preparations, and all of them professed to be mystified by the American decision to buy local:

Even before the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, diplomats from other nations and Libyan security officials had questioned the wisdom of a U.S. decision to rely primarily on members of a local militia to protect its compound here.

Diplomats here told McClatchy that while it’s customary to depend on local forces to protect diplomatic missions, only the United States of the 10 or so foreign missions here allowed the local militia to be the first line of defense. The others said they instead depended on military forces from their own country to provide security.

“A few months ago, there was a small attack here and the Libyans fled,” said a diplomat from a European nation who asked that he not be further identified so that he could speak candidly about his assessment of security here. “After that, I decided to only use special forces” from his own country.

“We never considered using the brigades,” he said, referring to the 17th of February Brigade, the local militia that was considered the primary security force for the U.S. mission. “We assumed the United States had a special relationship with the brigades.”

Said another diplomat who requested anonymity for the same reasons: “I would never depend on the brigades.”

In fact, the security situation in Benghazi had degenerated into a turf war between competing militias and terrorist groups long before the assault on the American consulate, emphasis mine:

On Wednesday, during a ceremony honoring Stevens, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the administration has, in the wake of the 9/11 attack, dispatched a joint State and Defense Department task force “to review high-threat posts to determine whether there are other improvements we need in light of the evolving security challenges we now face.”

Diplomats here, however, say they believe one such improvement had become obvious in the months after a NATO air campaign helped topple the government of longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: Don’t expect local forces to protect you when they can’t even protect themselves against local extremists and terrorists groups in a city now defined by reprisal attacks. In the past week alone, two police stations here were bombed and a police colonel’s patrol car was destroyed in front of his house; extremist groups seeking to wrest control of the city are the suspected culprits.

In that kind of environment, selecting a militia to provide security not only brings an unreliable partner into the consulate, it compounds the hostility by choosing sides in a gang war.  One might think that a “smart power” administration might understand that consequence of their own decapitation strategy in a part of the country where terrorist networks operate openly and with impunity.  Instead, despite months of warnings from Tripoli and Benghazi about this very situation, the State Department apparently did nothing to address the problem, leading to the inevitable result.

This should be on Congress’ front burner, after the death of four Americans in an utterly predictable and preventable failure.  With Barack Obama safely re-elected, maybe the media will finally put it on theirs, too. Meanwhile, Fox produced a timeline yesterday that prompts even more questions:

The Defense Department timeline on the night of Sept. 11 begins at 9:42 p.m. local time and states, “The incident starts at the facility in Benghazi.”

Right from the start, the Pentagon and the CIA timelines do not match. (The CIA timeline, which was released on Nov. 1, states that at 9:40 p.m., “A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA annex and requested assistance.”)

A source at the CIA annex that night told Fox News that when they first asked to go and help, they were told to wait.

Within 17 minutes of the start of the attack, AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham, who happens to be visiting Washington and was in the Pentagon that day, redirects an unarmed, unmanned drone to Benghazi. …

At 10:32 p.m. (4:32 p.m. in Washington), 50 minutes after the incident began, the National Military Command Center, which is the operations center at the Pentagon where Ham is overseeing the operation,  notifies Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

That means for nearly an hour, no one told the defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman that a U.S. ambassador is in peril and his personal security officer has pressed his “personal distress button” which sends an SMS signal back to the command authority in the U.S. and a U.S. embassy has been overrun by attackers.

A CIA team left for the consulate at 10:04 p.m. — 28 minutes before the Pentagon says Panetta and Dempsey were told the attack had occurred.

Sources at the CIA annex in Benghazi told Fox News in an interview on Oct. 25 that they asked permission to leave for the consulate immediately and twice were told to wait. The CIA says the base chief was trying to arrange Libyan help.

Be sure to read it all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just as planned.

Ignore an election won by massive fraud. SQUIRREL!!!

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The WH as their scapegoat now.

Blake on November 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Notice the glaring absence of US Marines standing on Ramirez’ wall.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

the security situation in Benghazi had degenerated into a turf war between competing militias and terrorist groups

I had to pause there because I thought that you were referring to the State dept and CIA…..

no, really…..

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Hillary is out of town…? Gen P is hiding? They know nothing..??

d1carter on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

“A few months ago, there was a small attack here and the Libyans fled,” said a diplomat from a European nation who asked that he not be further identified so that he could speak candidly about his assessment of security here. “After that, I decided to only use special forces” from his own country.

What are the odds the statement was from a British diplomat who collectively had the sense to read the writing on the wall and leave?

EnglishRogue on November 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The CIA says the base chief was trying to arrange Libyan help.

When the truth is told, it’ll be shown that he was on the phone ordering a pizza…./

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Benghazi.

Patreus.

Broadwell.

FBI.

CIA.

Panetta.

The name I’m coming up with after this stuff: Nixon.

Cover-up.

Distraction.

Confusion.

Abuse of the bureaucracy.

Incompetence.

All the President’s Men.

Save that Obama has dead personnel under his command that he sent into harms way and did nothing to ensure that there was coverage in case of any problems.

American Blood and Lives in Benghazi.

Out, out damn spot!

Yet this is one dog that cannot be eaten, and one crisis that will use him no matter how much he tries to use it.

ajacksonian on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Do you guys think this is going to make any impact? The election is over and the Socialist won. Nobody frigging cares. I think we should concentrate on pushing the House to hold its ground on Obamacare and taxes.

celticdefender on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Dems to call all if these hearings political theater in 5….4….3

We need to focus on the fiscal cliff…. we cant multi task at all
-libs

cmsinaz on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Do you guys think this is going to make any impact? The election is over and the Socialist won. Nobody frigging cares. I think we should concentrate on pushing the House to hold its ground on Obamacare and taxes.

celticdefender on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

It depends on what they find. This is a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 with 4 dead Americans including an ambassador. They can’t just sweep this under the rug.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Benghazi = “Smart Power!”

So when will Barry step forward and claim “Executive Privilege”?

GarandFan on November 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Too bad the Secretary of State is “too busy” to attend any of those briefings.

GarandFan on November 12, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Without an honest media pressing this, nothing comes from it…

Khun Joe on November 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Do you guys think this is going to make any impact? The election is over and the Socialist won. Nobody frigging cares. I think we should concentrate on pushing the House to hold its ground on Obamacare and taxes.

celticdefender on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

No,quite a few of us actually give a sh!t.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 10:48 AM

They can’t just sweep this under the rug.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

when you’ve got the press in your back pocket, a drug addled America who doesn’t give a damn, and you just won reelection, then you can sweep a whole lot under the rug.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Can’t respond to a foreign crisis in Benghazi;
Can’t respond to a domestic crisis in New York.

Heckuva job, Barry.

Just what on earth do you think the role of government is? Handing out goodies to cronies? Is that it? Is this some kind of arcane “Halloween Theory of Government”? Is that your guiding principle, Mr. President?

ss396 on November 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM

These hearings go nowhere if those requested to testify simply refuse. How’s that civil court hearing on the moron Eric Holder’s subpoena doing?

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Without an honest media pressing this, nothing comes from it…

Khun Joe on November 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM

With or without an honest media, what on earth are Obama’s guiding principles for government? Benghazi isn’t the media’s fault.

ss396 on November 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

It depends on what they find. This is a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 with 4 dead Americans including an ambassador. They can’t just sweep this under the rug.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Fast and Furious with 300+ dead Mexicans and two dead Americans is pretty much gone under the rug. Why not this too?

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Remember Broadwell has been investigated and no laws were broken..?

d1carter on November 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM

ajacksonian on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Can’t use this crisis?

With the media’s help, I could do what General Patton offered at the end of WWII:

Invade the nascent Eastern Bloc and make it look like the Russians started it.

Look at the 2008 financial meltdown. I have yet to discover any actions by Wall Street aside from lying about the quality of securities (bundled mortgages) to customers and failing to self regulate to the extent of blowing a whistle on the wacko loans to poor folks that Dems were lobbying for in government and out.

Look at the recent polls. Over half of our brother and sister citizens still blame President Bush.

Karl Rove should have read some posts here and rehabbed the administration he served in before trying to sell a green beret of capitalism to the American people as their POTUS. They still see the whole bunch as merciless killers.

Amazing how the propaganda machine works, isn’t it?

IlikedAUH2O on November 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Still want to hear alot more too about those British and Turkish resources on the ground in Libya, that were closer than Tripoli, and were never called in to help during the attack. Makes no sense to me.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

when you’ve got the press in your back pocket, a drug addled America who doesn’t give a damn, and you just won reelection, then you can sweep a whole lot under the rug.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Not saying they won’t try. But at some point, someone will have to answer for it. I suppose the Democrat/media complex was hoping to buy Obama enough time to A) get him past the election(which worked) and B)finding a fall guy(which won’t be easy).

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Now that “Betrayus” has stepped down from his government position
and is a regular ole citizen, what does this mean in legal terms
for what he can and cannot do re the hearings?

I read he is not going to testify. Is this because he is no longer
obligated to testify by law because he is no longer part of the government?

Does this mean that as a regular ole citizen he will lawyer up
and please the fifth?

Amjean on November 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I meant “plead” the fifth!

Amjean on November 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM

“Five separate committees”

Five?

Really?

BallisticBob on November 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM

BOMBSHELL

there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.

The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/petraeus-mistress-may-have-revealed-classified-information-at-denver-speech/#ixzz2C1cDQvfg

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

They can’t just sweep this under the rug.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Wanna bet?
F&F..screwing bond holders..dropping NBP intimidation case..promising communists that you can be more flexible once the election is over and have the communist “stand with you”..Carzs..Keystone..union thugs at the whitehouse on a weekly basis..etc.
All forgotten and yesterdays 3rd page items.

Mimzey on November 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

When the legacy media refused to do its job, this administration thought they could get away with anything.

d1carter on November 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

They can’t just sweep this under the rug.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

They don’t have to. 51% of the country just said they don’t give shit what Obama does.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 11:06 AM

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

So what was Stevens doing there?

Mimzey on November 12, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Exit question: Was the Ambassador kidnapped and swapped for the prisoners? (he was ‘missing’ for 5 hours while Obama slept)

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Preface this by saying that perhaps I’m wrong, because it is more what I feel than what I think. Who cares about Bengazi? And congressional hearings are just going to make us look like insensitive mongers. If Libya shows O to be incompetent, who cares? And his reelection proved that wrong. Even if O is incompetent, there’s enough competence around him to get his agenda through. If Libya shows O was deceptive, O’s reelection campaign proved that already, and no one cares. If it proves terrorism is rampant, that’s apparently not a concern of most people. We have a fiscal cliff coming on, and OCare’s implementation is imminent. These are the important issues. Stick to what matters. Maybe there’s a lot of details that I just don’t get, but I don’t have time to wade through hours of details, and neither does 90% of the public. Whatever it is, it’s not significant enough for us to waste any more time on. Move on.

anotherJoe on November 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

You’d think some big name investigative reporter would be all over this story to write a Pulitzer book with movie rights, but then they may be afraid of the Ft Marcy Park treatment.

Kissmygrits on November 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I had to pause there because I thought that you were referring to the State dept and CIA…..

no, really…..

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

My sentiment exactly.

Archivarix on November 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I read he is not going to testify. Is this because he is no longer
obligated to testify by law because he is no longer part of the government?

Does this mean that as a regular ole citizen he will lawyer up
and please the fifth?

Amjean on November 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

There are security issues he cannot testify about, but as long as he doesn’t divulge classified info, he’s free to say anything he wants.

But, he’s an adulterer, so nothing he says from now on is credible.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Without an honest media pressing this, nothing comes from it…

Khun Joe on November 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Don’t you mean Congress?

koaiko on November 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM

It has been building for decades. Just ask 41.

This story was frozen. Now it will be warped and then buried.

They awarded the election in 2008 and they just did it again. This time they had help from Mitt who made a very poor strategic decision.

There were over 200 articles in the NYT on Watergate before a single congressional hearing was held.

If the GOP doesn’t do something about this media, offering amnesty and free transport into the country for their friends and family back home to illegals, Cosmo subscriptions and Victoria’s Secret gift cards to go with free birth control pills for single women and free rides to serial voters from one polling location to another on election day will do them no good.

Like many other liberal crimes, this story is so horrible that The Comedy Channel can’t cover it and Fox can only do so much

IlikedAUH2O on November 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I wonder if these same posters saying “so what” are the same ones who want Conservatives to “evolve”?

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM

There are security issues he cannot testify about, but as long as he doesn’t divulge classified info, he’s free to say anything he wants.

But, he’s an adulterer, so nothing he says from now on is credible.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM

There is a reason that they are closed sessions. He can and should testify to everything asked.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ignore anotherTroll

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

But, he’s an adulterer, so nothing he says from now on is credible.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Obama: “Exactly, comrade”

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Good luck swaying the election over this Benghazi debacle… Oh wait..

HotAirLib on November 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

OT: What the HELL is wrong with this site in that it bans posts with certain words in it? I can’t even link to an article about people from 19 states registering petitions to s——? I can’t even link to the article by itself because the link contains the s——- word.

Does this site stand for freedom of speech or not (or has that become another s—– word to be banned)?

I guess you’ll have to look it up yourself on… http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11

dominigan on November 12, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Good luck swaying the election over this Benghazi debacle… Oh wait..

HotAirLib on November 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

See, troll, nothing could have swayed the election. Hussein Ogabe could slit puppy throats on air during his CNN interview, and he’d get the same numbers. Either his electorate stopped caring, or the vote-counting process is far too corrupt to be affected. We here, on the other hand, are concerned with how to salvage what remains of the country. So, if you come here to gloat, FOAD; but if you want to be a part of the actual discussion, you’re welcome – by me, at least.

Archivarix on November 12, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Has anyone actually thought this out?

I for one believe that this was a rag-tag group of Americans, at the consulate and annex, who were doing things illegal or outrageous. They group serving in Benghazi were seen as tight lipped and able to be trusted… They figured whatever illegalities they were up to would stay in Libya if they used local security.

Also, how about if they brought in Brits or Americans, they may object to the goings ons at that facility? Eh? Maybe torture? Maybe not … who knows!

preallocated on November 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

This is the outsourcing that really matters. We outsourced our diplomatic security to a third-world militia.

rlyle on November 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I wonder if these same posters saying “so what” are the same ones who want Conservatives to “evolve”?

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Thank you! I was just thinking the same thing.

Nothing is going to undo the presidency at this point, but every effort should be made to point out every single failing, even if it is only in the news for days or weeks. Drip, drip, drip.

Because Petraeus is such a juicy sex scandal, it does have life in it for the media. They love to destroy heroes.

Mitsouko on November 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Definitely something that wouldn’t be viewed in the best light by the American Public. It’s my opinion that they chose to not send in our military to “save” these people, or protect these people, simply because that action would have opened them up to way too many whistle blowers.

preallocated on November 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Good luck swaying the election over this Benghazi debacle… Oh wait..

HotAirLib on November 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Kinda tough to do AFTER the election is over. The MFLSM are a bunch of scumbags.

VegasRick on November 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Also, how about if they brought in Brits or Americans, they may object to the goings ons at that facility? Eh? Maybe torture? Maybe not … who knows!

preallocated on November 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

What the heck are you going on about?

Mitsouko on November 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM

So, if you come here to gloat, FOAD; but if you want to be a part of the actual discussion, you’re welcome – by me, at least.

Archivarix on November 12, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I for one will take a pass on the discussion with trolls.

VegasRick on November 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Was OBL in Benghazi?
/?

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I listened yesterday to a replay of Obama’s speech in which he described Benghazi AS “A NATURAL PROTEST…”

“a natural protest” he said.

Whattheheck is “a natural protest.”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I think that if Obama calls the people who were killed “folks” and in the same sentence refer to the killers as “folks” the house should impeach him!!

rik on November 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

With Barack Obama safely re-elected, maybe the media will finally put it on theirs, too.

I almost choked to death after reading that, Ed.

Thanks…

catmman on November 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Good luck swaying the election over this Benghazi debacle… Oh wait..

HotAirLib on November 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It’s not going to just go away, dear. Sorry.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I for one will take a pass on the discussion with trolls.

VegasRick on November 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I am willing to discuss things with ANYONE who brings on a valid argument. We’ve been so deep in the echo chamber (read: up Ed’s arse) that missed what has come to pass on 11/6. Had the name of SCYTL come up earlier in the discourse there would be protests (likely armed) all around the country by November.

Archivarix on November 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

It’s a bad movie, some sort of trageo-comedy with awful, awful tears:

*BOTH* HEAD of CIA **AND** Secretary of State ~just can’t make it to testify before Congress~ about this…

It’s almost as if we have THE ONION editorial staff in the White House now, issuing decisions on behalf of the Administration, all.

On a less horrified level, however, I wonder why **IF** there was a “secret” CIA prison there at the Benghazi, Libya embassy, WHY?NOW THE EFFORTS TO AVOID TESTIMONY?

I mean, **IF** the place was for purposes of holding enemies of our nation there, WHY all the appearances of both embarrassment and shame about it? If they’re enemies of the USA, there shouldn’t be any double-talk, shame or embarrassment about holding them responsible, ESPECIALLY by a head of the CIA and the SoS.

It’s like Obama really finds our national security a shameful, awful thing that he’s writing lengthy apology letters about to our enemies.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

TYPO in previous:

On a less horrified level, however, I wonder why **IF** there was a “secret” CIA prison there at the Benghazi, Libya embassy, WHY?NOW THE EFFORTS TO AVOID TESTIMONY?

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Wrong question mark in above…

SHOULD READ:

On a less horrified level, however, I wonder why **IF** there was a “secret” CIA prison there at the Benghazi, Libya embassy, WHY NOW THE EFFORTS TO AVOID TESTIMONY?

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I think that if Obama calls the people who were killed “folks” and in the same sentence refer to the killers as “folks” the house should impeach him!!

rik on November 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

They were FOLKS engaged in A NATURAL PROTEST!

/ Obama duplicity.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I think that if Obama calls the people who were killed “folks” and in the same sentence refer to the killers as “folks” the house should impeach him!!

rik on November 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

They were FOLKS engaged in A NATURAL PROTEST!

/ Obama duplicity.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Let’s face it, though, had they been rioting, terrorizing Swedes or Icelanders or maybe Canadians, Obama and Admin. would have quickly referred to them as “fascist WHITE PEOPLE pillaging and trashing and SMEARING Obama…”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I listened yesterday to a replay of Obama’s speech in which he described Benghazi AS “A NATURAL PROTEST…”

“a natural protest” he said.

Whattheheck is “a natural protest.”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

To me it almost sounds like ‘legitimate protest’ (imagine now Barry saying that actually :) , but really, how else would you qualify ‘natural’ in the respective context…another possibility is ‘spontaneous’, I guess…

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Definitely something that wouldn’t be viewed in the best light by the American Public. It’s my opinion that they chose to not send in our military to “save” these people, or protect these people, simply because that action would have opened them up to way too many whistle blowers.

preallocated on November 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Not to mention Voodoo Granny, Valerie Jarrett and the wife, all of whom loathe our US military. Obama would have had those three all yelling at him.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I listened yesterday to a replay of Obama’s speech in which he described Benghazi AS “A NATURAL PROTEST…”

“a natural protest” he said.

Whattheheck is “a natural protest.”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

To me it almost sounds like ‘legitimate protest’ (imagine now Barry saying that actually :) , but really, how else would you qualify ‘natural’ in the respective context…another possibility is ‘spontaneous’, I guess…

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Well, let’s not be naive. Obama was focused on the HEADY SUBTEXT of the situation, the Ambassador’s homosexuality, what happened to him at the hands of the “natural protest” “folks”…prison, all that.

“It was a natural protest…” Obama said. He’s a sick guy.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I listened yesterday to a replay of Obama’s speech in which he described Benghazi AS “A NATURAL PROTEST…”

“a natural protest” he said.

Whattheheck is “a natural protest.”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

To me it almost sounds like ‘legitimate protest’ (imagine now Barry saying that actually :) , but really, how else would you qualify ‘natural’ in the respective context…another possibility is ‘spontaneous’, I guess…

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Well, let’s not be naive. Obama was focused on the HEADY SUBTEXT of the situation, the Ambassador’s homosexuality, what happened to him at the hands of the “natural protest” “folks”…prison, all that.

“It was a natural protest…” Obama said. He’s a sick guy.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Obama’s a sick guy. What HE WAS REALLY SAYING was, he was excusing the violence: “it was natural…” as in, “nothing wrong with it, just folks bein’ folks…”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Move on.

anotherJoe on November 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I think the administration would love nothing more…and who cares what it “looks like”. Like you said, plenty of people paying no attention anyway. More lives still need to be protected, and the same decisions that led to this nightmare can’t be allowed again.
I for one , think the Americans who were abandoned in Benghazi deserve justice. Whether or not we get it for them isn’t the whole point. I just would hate to think we didn’t even try.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Well, let’s not be naive. Obama was focused on the HEADY SUBTEXT of the situation, the Ambassador’s homosexuality, what happened to him at the hands of the “natural protest” “folks”…prison, all that.

“It was a natural protest…” Obama said. He’s a sick guy.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Obama’s a sick guy. What HE WAS REALLY SAYING was, he was excusing the violence: “it was natural…” as in, “nothing wrong with it, just folks bein’ folks…”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM

…which tact Obama WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN had they been White people attacking a Black Ambassador and staff.

THe terrorists were “colored” and the victims (ALL of them) were White.

So in Obama’s frame of reference, those terrorists (“folks”, “protesters”) were engaged in “a natural protest” — nothin’ wrong, they were just doin’ their own business…

Imagine if the “folks” doin’ the violence, uhhh, “protestin’,” were White and the victims had been Black or Brown.

Everyone should really look very, very closely at Obama’s blatant racism and deceptive loyalties as to Benghazi.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM

There are security issues he cannot testify about, but as long as he doesn’t divulge classified info, he’s free to say anything he wants.

But, he’s an adulterer, so nothing he says from now on is credible.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM

There is a reason that they are closed sessions. He can and should testify to everything asked.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

One would think so!

I don’t get how they, meaning Hillary and Betrayus, can just
say, “we are not going to attend”. These are five “voluntary”
hearings? When do the involuntary hearings start? I want to
see subpoenas and the subsequent head rollings!! Alas, I suppose
that takes time. Enough time to hide/obscure the evidence
and confuse everyone with too many details.

Amjean on November 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I for one , think the Americans who were abandoned in Benghazi deserve justice. Whether or not we get it for them isn’t the whole point. I just would hate to think we didn’t even try.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM

You’re not the only one.

It’s looking more that Benghazi is a symptom of something bigger and I don’t imply anything negative about our military but I do about the current Admin.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Because Petraeus is such a juicy sex scandal, it does have life in it for the media. They love to destroy heroes.

Mitsouko on November 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

True, but don’t forget that Petraeus ousted himself, media does not really control this narrative, he kinda struck pre-emptively by admitting to his affair…so, they were rather played…sure some juicy details might keep coming, but unless they put their emails exchange out there, he kinda stole the media’s thunder…he self-destruct so to say :), before he let them do it :)…

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

There is a reason that they are closed sessions. He can and should testify to everything asked.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

He no longer holds the authority to discuss classified information. At all.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Another detail that concerns me about current state of Benghazi tragedy is that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D/CA), who is cochair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (and that Committee is the one holding the hearings on this issue), said yesterday on Chris Wallace’s show on Fox, she said assuredly and DECISIVELY, that “Petraeus’ resignation HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH Benghazi, NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH IT.”

She hasn’t heard his testimony yet. No hearings have yet occured. How does she know this and know this so decisively at this time?

She said it in what I’d call “unnecessarily decisive terms,” similar to the tone and volume and force displayed by Amb. Rice on those Sunday talk shows when she insisted Benghazi “was about a video,” “a spontaneous protest sparked by a video…”

Remember Rice’s presentation of decisiveness then? Very, very “sure” of what she was saying, insisting it and over and over.

That was same presentation of that one statement Feinstein made yesterday (I quoted it in first paragraph, above). She was otherwise nearly timid with Wallace, speaking quietly and softly and not being at all aggressive. When she got to that statement about Petraeus’ resignation, she displayed what seemed to me to be an unnatural decisiveness about his resignation, that it “was NOT related to Benghazi.”

Since no testimony nor hearing at all has occured yet, her declaration in that regard was not credible.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM

He no longer holds the authority to discuss classified information. At all.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I am guessing Petraeus could be “compelled” by Congress to NOT AVOID information, Classified or not, of what he was in control of while the situation occurred. Something like that. Thus, the “closed door hearing.”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 12:16 PM

“I’m also a military reservist with a top secret/SCI clearance and then some”

Per Paula

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I simply cannot take ANY democrat seriously who NOW decides to question Benghazi.

Freddy on November 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I am guessing Petraeus could be “compelled” by Congress to NOT AVOID information, Classified or not, of what he was in control of while the situation occurred. Something like that. Thus, the “closed door hearing.”

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Certainly possible.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 12:25 PM

when you’ve got the press in your back pocket, a drug addled America who doesn’t give a damn, and you just won reelection, then you can sweep a whole lot under the rug.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Even if Zero got impeached by the House, what do you think a Harry Reid-controlled Senate will do about it?

Answer: not a thing.

For reference, see Clinton, William, impeached.

IrishEyes on November 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

It’s a real shame that you can’t trust ANYthing the government says anymore. Hillary should be required to attend the hearings and answer the questions. She said herself she was responsible. If not now, when? She’s said she’ll be leaving in January, is she never going to have to answer?

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I wonder if there was some sort of deal made between Hillary and the president…you keep me out of the hearings and I will leave in January and never speak of what I know. That’s what happens when you aren’t given the facts…you speculate.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 12:47 PM

“I’m also a military reservist with a top secret/SCI clearance and then some”

Per Paula

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Funny thing I saw this quote before and I could swear that she used the past tense when she mentioned the TS, but I will have to check again.

jimver on November 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM

ALL THE PRESIDENTS LIARS.

Including the Pravda-level Press.

Corruption without a Correspondent to uncover the crooks.

Who with be Obama’s deep throat?

Is there one functioning conscience left in DC?

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 4:25 PM

with = will be Obama’s deep throat.

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Just as planned.

Ignore an election won by massive fraud. SQUIRREL!!!

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

S. D. on November 13, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Dems to call all if these hearings political theater in 5….4….3

We need to focus on the fiscal cliff…. we cant multi task at all
-libs

cmsinaz on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Yeah, we need to just keep quiet about it and focus only on the economy.

Cause that worked out so well for us in the election!

/Obligatory sarc

tom on November 13, 2012 at 2:03 AM

There is a reason that they are closed sessions. He can and should testify to everything asked.

katy the mean old lady on November 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

He no longer holds the authority to discuss classified information. At all.

BobMbx on November 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Yeah, I don’t think he can get off that easy. If that were the case, then all the president would ever have to do to prevent Congressional oversight is remove a person’s security clearance. But since Congress has oversight, the president can’t remove that oversight by playing games with security classifications.

As long as Congress addresses the security issues with closed hearings, Petraeus can testify to exactly what he knows, classified or not.

tom on November 13, 2012 at 2:06 AM