What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?

OK, here's what I don't get, and I think gets to the gist of all this. Let me start by quoting an article today by a Republican representative:

A major challenge preventing us from learning the truth and helping whistleblowers come forward is the siloed nature of the investigations conducted by the five committees. It is clear that getting the truth about the response to the Benghazi attack will require a bipartisan investigation that has full access to witnesses and documents across the government, including the Departments of Defense, State, the intelligence community and the White House. A select committee would be just that.

In the eight months since the attacks, 139 of my colleagues in the House – nearly two-thirds of the majority party – have signed on to my legislation to create a select committee to investigate the attack and the Obama administration's subsequent cover-up

www.usnews.com...

So, in one breath he concedes that they don't yet know the truth, but in the next he states as matter of fact that there was a cover-up. The bottom line is that everyone pointing fingers doesn't know anything. I agree with him - what this is going to take is a bipartisan investigation. That's the only thing that would assuage both sides. The witch hunt that the right currently has cranking ain't working and it's just making things worse. So, please, stop talking like you *know* there was a cover up and like you *know* all the facts of the case. I hope they do uncover the actual facts - but it has to be done fairly, not via the current freak show that's going on...

This thread is proof that people easily forget, and do not fully understand things as they unfold.

What's the big deal? After all it was only 4 Americans who were killed by Islamic terrorist on the anniversary of 9/11 in a Country that our President illegally invaded. Killed by the same people he armed to overthrow the leader of this same Country. They only ignored numerous warnings of an impending attack on the Consulate and in the end blamed it on a Youtube video and claimed it was a spontaneous act and not the result of a terrorist attack.

Yeah... whats the big deal?

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by 48e18

 

My outrage isn't fake...I expect the people who are in Political Office running MY Country to not pass the buck, and tell outright lies.

I too, think this didn't require a new flag and star chasing thread...jmoho...

Des

I think this needed another thread.

Yet, I don't see you protesting the dozens of threads blaming Obama, sounds to me like you are trying to
shut down free speech with this kind of gold.

Obama is to blame. He is the Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces...did you forget that.....

Des

Yeah. A CIC who couldn't even be bothered to pick up a phone and check on the situation while he was in Vegas raising money.....

But... Now that we have the whistleblowers testifying, we're getting the straight dope. Finally. Let's see where that goes.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by 48e18

 

Accountability.

Accountability????

I have yet to see either party be held accountable for anything? We have had wars, stolen money, crashed economies, unemployment, outrages debt, using public money to bailout top corporate stock holders, using middle class taxed income who can't afford it in order to provide foreign welfare, encourages oligopoly industries to flurish, etc ..........

Yet, who has been held accountable?

Switching back and forth between two political parties is not holding them accountable! Its just plain stupidity when nothing has changed for the betterment of the middle class within several decades.

I guess people don't get Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Perhaps they need to add fool me repeatability then I'm political cheer-leading fool.

.

Originally posted by 48e18
reply to post by Boadicea

 

"There was absolutely nothing about the actual attack that was covered up."

Nor did I say the actual attack was covered up. But now you've got me thinking, and in effect, their initial admitted false reports (for whatever reason) did serve to cover up and conceal the truth. Further cover up and concealment followed.

"So honestly, what does it matter?"

It obviously doesn't matter to you. But it obviously does matter to me and many others, especially the families and loved ones of those serving our country and placed in harm's way by this administration and then forsaken to unspeakable horrors. This is unconscionable and must never be allowed to happen again, hence the necessity to find out how and why it happened in order to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Edited to add: I apologize for getting the formatting wrong when I tried to use the "quote" option, and I don't know how to fix it. I hope the quotation marks help clarify.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by cholo


You just agreed that Hillary was to blame, yet you cannot give it a rest.

No. I just said it was brilliant that she said she was responsible, then someone said she wasn't.

Your agenda is well known. Give it rest, Obama is the president and he is gonna be remembered as a
GREAT president for generations to come.

My agenda?

Obama a great president?

Those who die in service to their country assume those risks when they take on the job.

They don't assume risks just to benefit a progtards political career.

Well Beeper, you are pretty much lying and distorting what you said before.

Obama has turned around the economy that Bush tanked, and that will continue to grow.
No longer do we have a half retarded, son of an Elite running the show doing conservative things
that are witless and no good for non elite people.

My comment is much more accurate than you'd like to admit, the prize will be what the history books reflect.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by 48e18


It's not much of a "cover up" when they come out and say "Sorry, that initial information was incorrect".

That is in no way an apology for calling down 2 separate requests for help.

That is in no way an acknowledgement that they were responsible for the deaths.

You are obfuscating and doing a poor job for Team-Obama. Hope they aren't keeping your chair warm at MSNBC.

And actually the "first" information WAS correct. The talking points were changed to scrub a link to All Qaida, to Islamic terrorism, and that it was a direct attack on the consolate.

I don't know about this Benghazi thing. We have a few congressmen having tears in their eyes. Soldiers die all the time and noone has a congressional hearing about their unnecessary deaths. This whole thing is getting used for publicity so much it demeans it. I understand that we lost a good man but we lose good people all the time. It's always a tragedy when a life is lost. Just because they were diplomats makes no difference to me.

thinkprogress.org...

You know, the funny thing about this is I said it was gun running ages ago and 90% of ATS jumped down my throat. They will do it again. There is something, but they keep barking up the wrong tree so they will get nowhere.

There will be no answers as we are talking about the CIA. They aren't going to sell themselves out for anyone.

reply to post by rickymouse


Yep it is all political..they don't really care as long as they score points politically.

No tears for the thousands of deaths of soldiers...just some crocodile tears for these four people..which by the way...almost everyone on the right is buying into.

If they truly cared about this attack they should also hold the republican party responsible for cutting security funding for that embassy. But they never mention that fact...never mention the possibility that if more security were there...this whole mess may have been avoided.

They do not care about true accountability..as shown..they only want a reason to hate on Obama and his admin.

Therefore it is faux outrage and continuous lies about wanting accountability.

I also love how these fools can't even agree on what is being covered up..I have heard at least three possible answer..

reply to post by kerazeesicko


To me it looks like a political side show, something you would see in a soap opera. I can't believe that anyone even believes all those fake concerns. Like I said, it is a tragedy and of course it could have been avoided. I wish we could avoid hearing all this fake political sales pitches though.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

To me it looks like a political side show, something you would see in a soap opera. I can't believe that anyone even believes all those fake concerns. Like I said, it is a tragedy and of course it could have been avoided. I wish we could avoid hearing all this fake political sales pitches though.

You didn't watch the testimony Wednesday.

That's obvious.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I watched about five minutes of it on the news. That was enough. I know they messed up as does everyone else in the country. Congress cut the funding. It's all a blame game and politically motivated. Like I said before, they never do this if some soldiers die.

Obama and Clinton covered up the fact that some of the same people they just supported to help overthrow Ghaddafi were now attacking one of our "Embassies", which wasn't an Embassy at all but a "Safe House". They refused to send help to one of our Ambassdors who is rumored to be CIA connected. I think because the rukus it would have caused would have drawn more people to the fight and also whatever journalists that were in the area. Which would of made the situation a lot harder to contain. They sold out one of our Ambassadors so the public wouldn' find out the fact the people we just helped hate us and want us out. I know some of what I'm saying is opinions and suppositions, but I feel that I'm not too far off the mark.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Yep it is all political..they don't really care as long as they score points politically.

No tears for the thousands of deaths of soldiers...just some crocodile tears for these four people..which by the way...almost everyone on the right is buying into.

If they truly cared about this attack they should also hold the republican party responsible for cutting security funding for that embassy. But they never mention that fact...never mention the possibility that if more security were there...this whole mess may have been avoided.

They do not care about true accountability..as shown..they only want a reason to hate on Obama and his admin.

Therefore it is faux outrage and continuous lies about wanting accountability.

I also love how these fools can't even agree on what is being covered up..I have heard at least three possible answer..

lol lets talk budget when we know the who armed the rebels. the republicans are doing what they should do which is put a cap on this admins spending habits. Really 4.5 billion dollars isn't enough lol its that extra half billion that put them in danger not the guns or money used to over throw the Libyan government no no no. Besides they had a freaken drone over head and they held them off for hours which was plenty of time to send in backup which has noting to do with security funding. Remember our embassies is our soil so an attack on it is an act of war on our country so attacking them back with a small force wouldn't or shouldn't of caused a war as long as we filled there government in on it.

The cover up specifically is what we all want to know, and anyone that can't see something is being covered up here is blind or just loves rubbing Obama's but like high school lovers in the hallway.

The Benghazi report underwent 12 revisions......

abcnews.go.com...

"When it became clear last fall that the CIA's now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story."

Pladuim

Originally posted by geldib
Obama and Clinton covered up the fact that some of the same people they just supported to help overthrow Ghaddafi were now attacking one of our "Embassies", which wasn't an Embassy at all but a "Safe House". They refused to send help to one of our Ambassdors who is rumored to be CIA connected. I think because the rukus it would have caused would have drawn more people to the fight and also whatever journalists that were in the area. Which would of made the situation a lot harder to contain. They sold out one of our Ambassadors so the public wouldn' find out the fact the people we just helped hate us and want us out. I know some of what I'm saying is opinions and suppositions, but I feel that I'm not too far off the mark.

edit on 10-5-2013 by geldib because: (no reason given)

Well the Embassy was attacked, the CIA annex was 2 miles from the consolate.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I watched about five minutes of it on the news. That was enough. I know they messed up as does everyone else in the country. Congress cut the funding. It's all a blame game and politically motivated. Like I said before, they never do this if some soldiers die.

I figured that. I thought if you watched any of it it was under 10 minutes. You missed some explosive testimony that shredded the administration's narrative to pieces. They lied, intimidated, and covered up what they did because it was on the eve of Obama's reelection. The Nixon white house did the same thing, the only difference is with Watergate four Americans were not killed. Obama should resign.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I watched about five minutes of it on the news. That was enough. I know they messed up as does everyone else in the country. Congress cut the funding. It's all a blame game and politically motivated. Like I said before, they never do this if some soldiers die.

I figured that. I thought if you watched any of it it was under 10 minutes. You missed some explosive testimony that shredded the administration's narrative to pieces. They lied, intimidated, and covered up what they did because it was on the eve of Obama's reelection. The Nixon white house did the same thing, the only difference is with Watergate four Americans were not killed. Obama should resign.

edit on 10-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I would love to see this "explosive testimony" that is going to force Obama to resign.

Do you have a transcript of the pertinent parts?

reply to post by DistantRumor


I never said it would "force" Obama to resign. I said Obama SHOULD resign like Nixon did for the same thing. Obama doesn't have the integrity to resign. He's so drunk on power and taxing and spending that it would never happen. Obama went to sleep and directed his Secretary of Defense not to provide military support, then got up the next day to go to Vegas for a fundraiser. And never talked to his SecDef after that 5pm phone call the day before. Then went out for a week after Benghazi for some time after the attack and directly lied about it being a spontaneous protest from a YouTube video when they knew from the get-go that it was a terrorist attack and there never was a protest.

And as far as transcripts, Google them, they're splattered over the net.