So says Democrat Elijah Cummings...and he's not happy about it.

Quote:At issue are two complaints from committee Democrats. The first is that they have been systematically excluded from at least five witness interviews, and only discovered that Republicans had conducted those interviews after the fact through press reports. The second complaint is the committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), is downplaying or disregarding interview testimony that contradicts assumptions about the night of the attacks.

The Select Committee To Investigate Benghazi May Be Falling Apart

If they want to keep Benghazi covered up then they're gonna have to find some water carriers to select. Otherwise the truth is gonna be uncovered. Just sayin

(01-27-2015 10:45 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  If they want to keep Benghazi covered up then they're gonna have to find some water carriers to select. Otherwise the truth is gonna be uncovered. Just sayin

What truth...what has been covered up?

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said at a hearing that the committee has recently received 15,000 pages of new documents, but needs greater cooperation from the State Department and other agencies to do its job.

Gowdy said it should not take a public hearing to force the administration to produce needed documents. "We should be analyzing documents, not waiting for them to appear," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-republic...itics.html

Why is the State Dept slow walking Docs.? They Committee you got 15,000 of them. Awful

(01-27-2015 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:45 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  If they want to keep Benghazi covered up then they're gonna have to find some water carriers to select. Otherwise the truth is gonna be uncovered. Just sayin

What truth...what has been covered up?

Several requests from August to September, practically begging for reinforcements and ammunition while the White House repeatedly denied those requests.

(01-27-2015 01:35 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:45 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  If they want to keep Benghazi covered up then they're gonna have to find some water carriers to select. Otherwise the truth is gonna be uncovered. Just sayin

What truth...what has been covered up?

Several requests from August to September, practically begging for reinforcements and ammunition while the White House repeatedly denied those requests.

First, if you know about them, they're not covered up.
Next, the White House doesn't have anything to do with these requests. State handles them. Besides, Stevens reportedly refused more help when it was offered!
Finally, the State departments own investigation, as well as the other half dozen or so investigations, have already concluded that state screwed up by not having enough protection in place.

Again, there is NO full proof plan to protect our personnel in foreign lands short of them not being there at all.

(01-27-2015 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:35 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:45 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  If they want to keep Benghazi covered up then they're gonna have to find some water carriers to select. Otherwise the truth is gonna be uncovered. Just sayin

What truth...what has been covered up?

Several requests from August to September, practically begging for reinforcements and ammunition while the White House repeatedly denied those requests.

First, if you know about them, they're not covered up.
Next, the White House doesn't have anything to do with these requests. State handles them. Besides, Stevens reportedly refused more help when it was offered!
Finally, the State departments own investigation, as well as the other half dozen or so investigations, have already concluded that state screwed up by not having enough protection in place.

Again, there is NO full proof plan to protect our personnel in foreign lands short of them not being there at all.

Perhaps cover up wasn't the correct usage. But they deny denying help.

I can agree with your last sentence, but reinforcements could very well have saved lives.

Yeah, There should have been a larger security force all along. Not safe to let Your guard down in a potential hostile environment.

(01-27-2015 01:57 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:35 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:45 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  If they want to keep Benghazi covered up then they're gonna have to find some water carriers to select. Otherwise the truth is gonna be uncovered. Just sayin

What truth...what has been covered up?

Several requests from August to September, practically begging for reinforcements and ammunition while the White House repeatedly denied those requests.

First, if you know about them, they're not covered up.
Next, the White House doesn't have anything to do with these requests. State handles them. Besides, Stevens reportedly refused more help when it was offered!
Finally, the State departments own investigation, as well as the other half dozen or so investigations, have already concluded that state screwed up by not having enough protection in place.

Again, there is NO full proof plan to protect our personnel in foreign lands short of them not being there at all.

Perhaps cover up wasn't the correct usage. But they deny denying help.

I can agree with your last sentence, but reinforcements could very well have saved lives.

But to what end? Do you want your kids going all over the world to protect these guys? Do you want your taxes raised to fund more protection for them all over the world?

You can't provide enough protection to ever guarantee all their safety to any degree of certainty. Sometimes, the enemy will just win...yeah it sucks...but it's the price we pay for our policies and ideals.

Bottom line, this has already been investigated to death and we're just wasting more money the longer this charade goes on.

(01-27-2015 02:07 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Yeah, There should have been a larger security force all along. Not safe to let Your guard down in a potential hostile environment.

Doesn't that describe basically everywhere that we have forces and ambassadors in foreign lands?

(01-27-2015 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:07 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Yeah, There should have been a larger security force all along. Not safe to let Your guard down in a potential hostile environment.

Doesn't that describe basically everywhere that we have forces and ambassadors in foreign lands?

No, it describes everywhere that Muslims exist. Would you consider our embassy in Japan to be in a hostile environment? (Oh good god, what did I just ask for?)

(01-27-2015 02:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:07 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Yeah, There should have been a larger security force all along. Not safe to let Your guard down in a potential hostile environment.

Doesn't that describe basically everywhere that we have forces and ambassadors in foreign lands?

No, it describes everywhere that Muslims exist. Would you consider our embassy in Japan to be in a hostile environment? (Oh good god, what did I just ask for?)

Do you know what the word "potential" means?

Not to mention that your own words contradict your ridiculous theory.
Japan's rich Muslim past and present

(01-27-2015 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:07 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Yeah, There should have been a larger security force all along. Not safe to let Your guard down in a potential hostile environment.

Doesn't that describe basically everywhere that we have forces and ambassadors in foreign lands?

Don't be obtuse. Comparing embassy security in Great Britain to Libya is foolish.

(01-27-2015 03:11 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:07 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Yeah, There should have been a larger security force all along. Not safe to let Your guard down in a potential hostile environment.

Doesn't that describe basically everywhere that we have forces and ambassadors in foreign lands?

Don't be obtuse. Comparing embassy security in Great Britain to Libya is foolish.

Again, Benghazi was NOT an embassy. And I wasn't being obtuse. A terrorist attack on our personnel can happen anywhere and anytime.

(01-27-2015 02:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:57 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:35 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What truth...what has been covered up?

Several requests from August to September, practically begging for reinforcements and ammunition while the White House repeatedly denied those requests.

First, if you know about them, they're not covered up.
Next, the White House doesn't have anything to do with these requests. State handles them. Besides, Stevens reportedly refused more help when it was offered!
Finally, the State departments own investigation, as well as the other half dozen or so investigations, have already concluded that state screwed up by not having enough protection in place.

Again, there is NO full proof plan to protect our personnel in foreign lands short of them not being there at all.

Perhaps cover up wasn't the correct usage. But they deny denying help.

I can agree with your last sentence, but reinforcements could very well have saved lives.

But to what end? Do you want your kids going all over the world to protect these guys? Do you want your taxes raised to fund more protection for them all over the world?

You can't provide enough protection to ever guarantee all their safety to any degree of certainty. Sometimes, the enemy will just win...yeah it sucks...but it's the price we pay for our policies and ideals.

Bottom line, this has already been investigated to death and we're just wasting more money the longer this charade goes on.

Every time this subject comes up you resort to the same hysterical straw-man argument. This was bum-**** Libya, in the middle of a civil war, there were AQ or someones flags flying all over town and the Ambassador did indeed ask for, repeatedly, additional security.

We DO NOT have the same security needs for bum-****
Libya that we do for Tokyo or Luxembourg or the Cayman islands.We just don't. We DID, clearly, need additional security over there, especially on the Anniversary of 9/11 and frankly it shouldn't have even needed to be requested. Someone at about a c-level grade should have been aware of what was going on and sent the support well in advance of this assassination.

Someone effed-up hard here and the problem is, we don't know who. Why is it so hard to get the correspondence and communications between parties on this subject? If there's no there, there, then release the info and bring the "charade" to an end. But, no. Clearly, instead, they are trying to slow walk this to death and run out the clock. There's no other explanation.

(01-27-2015 03:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bottom line, this has already been investigated to death and we're just wasting more money the longer this charade goes on.

No it has not been investigated to death. it has been whitewashed to death, but there are a number of legitimate questions that have not been addressed and a number of people who should have been questioned and have not been. That is not "investigated to death."

Quote:Someone effed-up hard here and the problem is, we don't know who.

This is the point. Republicans have tried so hard to stick this to the highest rafter that they have failed to do a capable job of actually uncovering who is really at fault. The problem is that there were no units in position to make an effective response at a time when it was not hard to figure out that something very bad was very likely to happen. And I'm talking military forces here, so the talking point that "republicans cut the security budget" is totally irrelevant. One other point, the ambassador reportedly refused offers of help; but those were MILITARY officers and he works for STATE, which was saying he didn't need more help. Taking that help under those circumstances would have been stabbing his boss in the back, which would have been curtains for his career. So of course he refused it. One place I will lay some of the blame, and this is something that I have been complaining about since the 1970s, is that the Navy's philosophy of ship building has been bigger and more expensive, meaning fewer units. And no matter how capable an LHA/LHD is, there's one thing an old-fashioned amphib squadron could do that it can't--be more than one place at the same time. In my days in Sixth Fleet, there would have been an amphibious squadron of 5-6 ships deployed to the Med, and each of those ships would have been able to put a company or larger contingent of Marines ashore if need be. On 9/11, park one off Tunis, one off Tripoli, one off Benghazi, one off Alexandria, one off Beirut, and one off Tel Aviv. Then if anything happens you have a force immediately available that would have been more than sufficient to turn the tide.

It's like the IRS deal. I'm perfectly fine with Lois Lerner being the bad girl if she is in fact the one responsible. But if she is responsible, then she needs to be doing 50. Of course, if you try to put her away for 50, she just might start singing a song that nobody in the White House wants her singing. Maybe, just maybe, that's what's wrong with Benghazi too.

(01-27-2015 03:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 03:11 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Don't be obtuse. Comparing embassy security in Great Britain to Libya is foolish.

Again, Benghazi was NOT an embassy. And I wasn't being obtuse. A terrorist attack on our personnel can happen anywhere and anytime.

Yes, you are. Of course, an attack could happen anywhere. However, which location is more dangerous?

Elections Have Consequences


- B. Obama 2009

(01-27-2015 03:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again, Benghazi was NOT an embassy. And I wasn't being obtuse. A terrorist attack on our personnel can happen anywhere and anytime.

Would you expect there to be any reasonable risk calculus by which Benghazi on 9/11 would not be determined to be at substantially higher risks than, say, Tokyo or London on the same date?

Because if it's the higher risk, then it's where the assets should have been deployed.

Yes, and the state department acknowledged the fact that they denied requests less than a month after the attack. They're covering up nothing!
State Dept. acknowledges rejecting requests for more security in Benghazi ~ 10/10/12

And running out what clock?

There have been countless pages of documents requested and released. There have been 6 previous investigations. None of them have found anything to point to any sort of intelligence failure, cover-up, or White House involvement. There has been nothing found to point to any sort of criminal behavior, so the longer this goes on is not going to keep anyone from going to jail. There has been nothing to point to any impeachable offense, so there is no point to running out Obama's term. Hillary has already left the State Department.

And to be truthful, the longer this draws out, it probably helps the Republicans keep this as a campaign issue to run against Hillary with, so you should actually be hoping this goes into triple OT!

And no, I'm not building any straw-men here. I called this a terrorist attack the day after it happened. I know they need more security in more hostile regions and regions with past history. And so did Stevens and the State Department. They're not denying that!