Add this to the list of lies
The U.S. military never attempted to deploy any assets or troops to Benghazi during the 13-hour attack on the American consulate in 2012, according to a supplemental reportreleased by the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Tuesday morning.
Although Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said he ordered three support teams to deploy to Benghazi about two hours into the attack, the committee said it found no evidence that these forces were mobilized until hours after the attack ended. Military assets, such as fighter planes and armed drones never left the ground, according to the report.
“We are now convinced, contrary to the administration’s public claim that the military did not have time to get to Benghazi, that the administration never launched men or machines to help directly in the fight,” wrote Reps. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) and Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) in the analysis. “That is very different from what we have been told to date. And the evidence is compelling.”
The congressmen issued their assessment as a supplement to the long-awaited report by the Benghazi Committee. According to the analysis, the Obama administration was fixated on how to frame the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack to the public, and spent little time trying to coordinate a military response while the attack was ongoing.
The attack took place less than two months before the 2012 presidential election. There were early indications the assault was planned—such as targeted mortar fire—but Obama administration officials initially linked it to spontaneous anti-American protests that had occurred the same day in Cairo.
Four Americans died in the 13-hour battle: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
More at the Washington Free Beacon
By all reckonings Ambassador Stevens was still alive while the State Dept and War Room invitees were concocting the internet video lie.
They could have been acting in his behalf.
Instead they wrote him off.
Fear of harming the terrorists that attacked the compound, and them using it as a recruiting tool. Imagine how many virgins we could have given out that day.
Oh, this is just a partisan attack to try and besmirch the stellar career of poor little Hillary.
Also of interest is that the only forces that DID try to assist the Americans were Libyan intelligence forces; the very people Obama and Hillary had deposed.
The Pentagon said that Obama before 4:00pm (10pm local time) immediately authorized them to do whatever they could
Unfortunately reality is not like a Tom Clancy novel
If posters have a problem with the lack of military response they should address it to them
It is apparent to me that Obama’s priority was getting to the Las Vegas fund raising event and minimizing any damage to his reelection efforts. This analysis is quite consistent with Obama’s thought processes exception there was not a round of golf included.
And, if that were true, there would be a CROSS BORDER AUTHORIZATION signed by the president so that they could legally do ”whatever they could.”
But, there is no such signed document.
Obama may have said something to that effect, knowing it was all for show unless he signed that paper.
Sounds just like him.
So, another republican-conducted congressional Benghazi investigation has come up totally empty, finding no evidence whatsoever for any of their numerous bullshit accusations.
The cost to the taxpayers for the latest shameless exercise in political opportunism? $7 million. Value to the nation? Utterly worthless.
I believe this was the 8th formal Congressional Benghazi investigation to have found no evidence of any sort of wrongdoing or subsequent cover-up, but I may have lost count at this point.
@John: #4 you are right! Who was CIC at that time? Who has been fired for the SOS being unaware that the consulate was poorly protected? Who says a machine gun isn’t the prettiest thing around when terrorists attack? How many of these terrorists have been brought to justice?
Hillary got this call in broad daylight, what would happen at 3 am?
Maybe all these answers were in deleted emails.
Greg: ooh 7million keep whining there is 6 billion either missing or improperly accounted for just the State department during Hillarys watch.
8 investigations less than 1 million for each one,
but less than she garnered for the slush fund for our uranium going to Russia.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy has been dodging direct questions regarding the investigative committee’s conclusions all day, suggesting instead that people read the latest report and draw their own conclusions. So, here’s a link to the report.
Note that it’s over 800 pages in length. Anyone who takes Gowdy’s suggestion to heart is going to be in for a very long session of reading.
What seems to be completely lacking is any section conveniently labeled Findings, Summary, or Conclusions. Why would that be, I wonder?
Hey, you can read the entire report and draw your own conclusions. Gowdy has, even though he’s not going to state them. The committee was only on a mission to find new facts leading to new revelations. And, by gosh, they’ve done that! They say this in the press release-like text at the beginning:
That’s followed by a short bulleted list of out-of-context statements intended to provide a vague framework for anyone inclined toward negative supposition.
That’s what the taxpayers got for their 7 million dollars: findings so vague that they can’t even be compiled into a summary of findings.
@Greg:
Gee how much money did we spend on the Valerie Plame investigation that went on for a year, when they knew the leaker’s name on day 3? No one died there either.
How much money did we waste on the Democrats Benghazi report where they interviewed no one and mentioned Donald Trump 23 times.? Sound like money well spent to you?
Don’t the families of the dead deserve more than no help came at all when their loved ones desperately needed it? Or marines were forced to change uniforms 4 times so as to not offend anyone? If it were your family member would you be satisfied?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2016/06/27/foxs-kevin-corke-keystone-pipeline-turndown-took-far-longer-benghazi
November can’t come soon enough. Perhaps we’ll see a number of sh-t throwing chimpanzees replaced by effective legislators who understand that Congress is supposed to be a productive, functional branch of government, rather than a means of continuously monkey-wrenching the machinery in hopes of eventually rolling the clock back 100 years.
I believe that the committee met its mission of detailing what happened. It was quite basic. Stevens requested better security as many as 600 times. The requests were denied or ignored. The administration lied about the video causing the incident when Obama and Clinton knew it was a terrorist attack. Obama and Clinton tried covering the cause up by sending Rice on the Sunday talk shows to lie. The rest of the issues of Obama and Clinton supplying the weapons to the terrorists who killed Stevens will continue to leak out since some of the source documents are now unclassified and have been placed on the internet. It also showed that the left will brainlessly support candidates who lie to them and deny high cover to those citizens tasked with carrying out this administration’s missions. It may have cost a lot, but confirming again how much this administration lies was important.
@John: @John: I’ll bet if someone reported a Confederate Battle Flag hung up somewhere, Obama and the left could organize a strike force to deal with such an atrocity. It’s all about motivation.
@Greg: No, we know Hillary is a lying, cold-blooded, incompetent money-whore and should never be anywhere neare the White House. And we know Obama didn’t follow up on what was happening to Americans in Benghazi and, obviously, didn’t care.
Just as we have been saying.
@Bill, #13:
If those were conclusions that could be supported by a shred of evidence, the report would be able to clearly state those conclusions in a summary of findings—which all such documents are expected to have—and cite the specific evidence that supports them. They did not because they cannot.
The alternative explanation is that they’re too stupid to write a simple, straightforward summary. Do you like that explanation any better?
There’s a reason the GOP is presently self-destructing. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with lying, incompetence, or the selling out of principles on the part of democrats. A party so out of control and irrational that it’s totally wrecking itself can’t be safely given charge of the entire country. A guy who thinks the responsibilities of the White House aren’t that much different from the responsibilities of running a golf course should be left to take care of this golf course.
Damn DJ, give it up already. The GOP and the Hillary Deranged Syndrome inflicted have been grasping at straws and regurgitating your weak tea propaganda, wasting huge tax payer’s money, and ending up with egg on your faces long enough.
You got your asses handed to you. Give it a break. You’re really starting to look like a bunch of dishonest clueless dumbasses(and I’m really trying to underplay how utterly desperate you’re presenting yourself).
But I suppose since you pretty much have the family farm riding on Benghazi and emails, well, that does leave your political arsenal rather depleted.
@Greg: Hmmm… well, let’s see what the reports said.
Hillary lied; she knew the attack was terrorism but LIED about a video. Then, she LIED to the survivors. Then, she LIED about them lying about her lying. Currently, she is lying about THIS experience making her in any way qualified for the Presidency.
Cold-blooded; the above is ample evidence of her reptilian nature, but in addition to that, she ignored warnings and requests for security and left those guys hanging out in the wind. And, just as cold-blooded, NO ONE has been fired or disciplined for this total failure.
Incompetent; ignoring the terror warnings and leaving those men exposed out there is incompetent. Thinking such a weak and stupid lie as blaming the attack on the video is incompetent. Not following up on the order to deploy assets to try to rescue the consulate and asking WHY there was no effort being made to rescue them. Incompetent is worrying more about what kind of politically-friendly excuse they can invent than saving those lives.
Money-whore; ample evidence has been presented here that shows she and Blumenthall were working the financial end of deposing Qaddafi and destroying the Libyan government for their own enrichment. How WRONG that was is indicated by the ONLY forces that aided the Americans in Benghazi were Libyan intelligence forces… from the Qaddafi regime. You can file that under “incompetent” as well.
You’re simply repeating the same slander than has been discredited again and again. Basically, it’s a load of horse manure. That’s what it means when no evidence can be found. Lord knows they’ve spent enough time and money looking for it.
At this point, Gowdy won’t even repeat the lies in front of a television camera. They’ve become too obvious. This time, we’ve got an 800 page report without even a summary of findings. It’s an 800 page insinuation. The man should have worn clown make-up while speaking to the press. He should have been making and handing out balloon animals, so they’d have something to show for their time.
@Greg: You should probably delete your Soros emails and take a look at the report.
@Bill, #16:
Do feel free to state specifically what any of this “ample evidence” might be—bearing in mind that an article somebody wrote for internet publication does not itself constitute “ample evidence” of anything. Acceptable evidence consists of verifiable facts.
@Greg:
$7 million?
Solyndra $500 MILLION
Spare us
@Bill #13:
Don’t you think that, eventually, there will no longer be ANY point to repeating the same thing over and over again?
There is a limit to the value of repetition.
At SOME point, the term “ad nauseam” applies.
Not a winning strategy.
Keep it up.
@Greg: Hillary takes $40 million from countries she criticizes for terror
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/nations-clinton-bashes-for-terrorism-gave-big-bucks-to-clinton-foundation/
Hillary takes $25.5 million from nations that ban, kill gays
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-nielsen/2016/06/14/clinton-foundation-takes-255m-countries-kill-imprison?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=clinton-foundatino
Hillary sold a position on intelligence review board
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
Clinton sold position on security board
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/with-clintons-always-follow-the-money/article/2593686
Benghazi is why it is important to admit what the threat is. Benghazi is why it is important to face the facts of radical Islamic terror. Obama and Hillary tried to pretend it didn’t exist and not only did people die but the terrorists enjoyed a propaganda bonanza.
You tell me, Greg… what is one characteristic of Benghazi that hints that Hillary is trustworthy or capable of handling a crisis.
@George Wells: The failure and subsequent lies that are the responsibility of Hillary and Obama must and WILL be repeated until the threat of Hillary setting foot in the White House is purged from this country forevermore. It is not directed at the brain-dead liberal sycophants that exploit tragedy for political gain and ignore their own failures. It is aimed at those who have not yet experienced the truth.
@DrJohn: $7 million is an Obama vacation.
@Greg: 800 pages of this still doesn’t wash, Panetta and Obama order a rescue and who then has the authority to disobey? Nothing is done. 2 hours of planning how to spin an attack politically, but no time follow up to see what resources are deployed to the consulate?leadership or cowadice?
Greg this stinks who is lying to congress, why no accountability?
I also hear the rescue team just couldn’t decide what to wear as to not offend a non-existant government of Libya, Is it a “does this make my butt look fat” moment?
Tax waste? http://nationalreport.net/obama-family-vacations-surpass-100-million/
Ah, yes, I see. And so, we should elect Donald The Clown Trump as president, to head up the Clown Circus that your lot has already put in charge of Congress.
Sorry. You can slander Hillary Clinton until the cows come home. It’s not going to make a bit of difference. Clinton may be far from perfect, but Trump is a freaking lunatic, and that is the bottom line.
It is not slander if it is the truth. Clinton is a proven liar. Calling her a liar is not slander.
You mean truths such as Donald Trump is a notorious serial adulterer? Or that he’s very likely a party to tax evasion? Or that he lies constantly?
All of which is true. But it’s not the reason I don’t want him in the White House. The reason is because he’s totally clueless while imagining that he knows everything; that he routinely speaks before he thinks; that he acts impulsively; and that his egotism appears to seriously distort his view of almost everything. I don’t recall ever seeing a more unqualified candidate for the office—a view that seems to be shared not only by a majority of democrats, but by up to one-third of republicans. You couldn’t have picked a republican candidate that would have made a Clinton presidency any more likely than this guy.
@Greg:
Geeze take out DT add Bill Clinton, didnt they have to refile years of taxes recently?? and that She aids and abets his antics. Hillary is also quite truth challenged Bengahzi caused by a u-tube video ring a bell?
And what in Obamas resume made him such a great candidate? What did he do to deserve a Nobel prize?
Hillary tried the adultery thing and ended up getting bitchslapped verbally by Trump and she hasn’t tried that line again.
Far from me to defend Trump, as a few here well know but attempt to make a little sense.
The first paragraph wassarcasm. I’m completely serious about what was said in the second paragraph. Trump is so far off the mark that Clinton becomes the only rational option, even for many people who otherwise wouldn’t even consider her.
He’s so far off the mark that even those who who hate Clinton can’t find much positive to say about him. The best they can do is to double down on the anti-Clinton rhetoric. They know this guy isn’t right for the job. They just have some fantasy in their heads that, if elected, he can somehow be made to work for them. Why they would think that, I can’t imagine.
@Greg: Yes, we should elect Trump, if the alternative is the lying, corrupt, incompetent Hillary. Yes, without a doubt or hesitation, Trump is the choice.
Trump has accomplishments and characteristics that strongly indicate he could do the job. Hillary has a proven record of failure, lies about the failures. Getting rich from her ability to influence government (including the selling of vital national resources), mishandling of national security and an incompetence that has provided NO positive accomplishments to tout.
Is Trump off the mark with illegal immigration? Is he off the mark with trade? Is he off the mark with the threat of radical Islam? Is he off the mark with our economy? He is RIGHT on all those issues while Hillary merely follows in Obama’s failed footsteps.
In proof by action, Hillary is clueless. She has PROVED this, time and time again. Meanwhile, Trump has succeeded and MANY have benefitted from his success. Hillary gets rich while spreading misery.
Yeah. Trump. Hillary is the option of lazy idiots.
@Bill #22:
By YOUR own count, Hillary has taken $65.5 million FROM terrorists who otherwise could have used that money to fund MORE terrorism, MORE killing gays. By MY reckoning, that makes her a hero. She has disarmed the enemy to the tune of whatever mischief $65.5 million can buy.
Evidently, you’d rather those terrorist countries kept the money and funded more terrorism with it. I find that a bit… strange.
@Bill #23:
Everybody who will be voting in November has already heard all they want to hear about Benghazi. Can you POSSIBLY believe otherwise? Republicans have been harping incessantly on it ever since it happened – WAY past the clinical definition of ad nauseam – and all you accomplish by repeating it further is cementing the resolve of those who disagree with you.
One of the BIG reasons why Republicans will lose in November is that they continue to attack Hillary and Obama INSTEAD of detailing what they’d do differently. Instead of explaining what a BETTER healthcare program would include, they simply promise to deconstruct Obamacare. Both Trump AND Sanders ran on promises MORE outrageously expensive than anything Hillary suggested, and NEITHER of them bothered to explain where any of the money would come from, save for Trump’s ridiculous assertion that he’d make Mexico pay for the “wall.” What’s trump’s real platform, or conversely, what’s going to happen to the GOP platform when Trump ISN’T on board with it? “Make America Great Again” isn’t a platform, it’s a slogan, and the United States isn’t governed, or even guided, by slogans.
Your time would be better spent educating Republicans who, after their “surprise” defeat in 2012, STILL “have not yet experienced the truth.”
The longer you ignore the lessons of that defeat, the easier you make Hillary’s victory.
Those oil-rich states bought her off cheap, George.
One of them, at the time she was getting this cash, was making a cool $1,000 million a DAY.
Other’s of them consider her bribe money to be petty cash.
They would still have had plenty to spend on funding their terrorists.
@Nanny G #33:
I’ll will grant you that.
Now YOU provide the quid pro quo you believe was paid for by that 65.5 million in pocket change.
In the ABSENCE of that $65.5 million, what would have been done differently?
Were WE going to start the last Crusade?
Maybe invade Pakistan?
Where are you going with this?
@Greg:
~emphasis mine
@George Wells….
Under Obama?
Absolutely nothing.
Hillary just took advantage of the situation to line her pockets.
And now she is getting their further support for more money because things WILL change under a Trump presidency.
Would he do any of the things you fear and list?
Maybe, or maybe other things.
But whatever he’d do would only be in reaction to whatever these nations do (or allow to be done) via their support of terrorism.
To paraphrase Hillary:
“We came, we saw, four Americans died”
Because Hillary needed a trophy
It is impossible to get accurate terrorist related statistics from this administration.
Islamablindness is the order of the day.
Mr. Philip Haney, a retired Customs and Border Protection Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, revealed that the CIA has scrubbed more than 800 law enforcement records that were almost all connected to the Muslim brotherhood.
The first “great purge,” he said, was in 2009. Yet, in 2012 they didn’t just modify the records, they eliminated them out of the system, which, he noted, bypasses security protocol in Homeland Security. Why does it matter? Because of San Bernardino. If the department hadn’t edited its records, perhaps they could have caught the San Bernardino terrorist who killed 14 people at a Department of Public Health training event, Haney insinuated.
So to cover for Obamas huge fail in leadership wipe from history all record of homeland terrorism. Only registered Democrats are in the WH Press core, we wouldn’t want any embarassing questions asked, or truth exposed.
@George Wells:
Make no mistake, I am fully aware of the heroic stature you assign to Hillary.
Unlike you, I think it rather important NOT to reward people with a totally corrupt history the Presidency.
@Nanny G #36:
Well then, You make my point quite well, thank you very much.
Yes, she took advantage of a situation to line her pockets, something that you praise Donald Trump for doing at the expense of American workers and mortgage holders of his bankrupt businesses. Why the double standard?
You STILL haven’t given me a rational reason for complaining about Hillary taking “terrorist” dollars.
Once again, GOOD FOR HER!
You understand that Hillary would be, essentially, more of the same. Considering how we’re enjoying an economic recovery from the disastrous recession that began under GW Bush, and how we’re perfectly happy with one mass murder every few days – only a tiny fraction of which are Muslim/terrorism-related – and not about to significantly erode 2nd Amendment rights in the name of gun control, what have we to lose by “staying the course”?
Put another way, exactly what course would TRUMP take us on? What POSSIBLE hint do you cling to that he’d do any better? Does HE have any record at all of leading a country? He can’t just opt to bankrupt the United States if things don’t go exactly his way, you know… TRUMP hasn’t taken a CONSISTENT position on anything more substantive than personal insults aimed at his nomination competition, his fellow Republicans who DON’T trust him or media folks who ask him higher-than-kindergarten-level questions.
He LIKES Putin and YOU like HIM?
My brain hurts!