Posted on 09/17/2014 6:09:22 AM PDT by struggle
The House Select Committee on Benghazi hears testimony from Homeland Security and Secret Service officials on the implementation of the Accountability Board’s recommendations following the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Frustrating to not be able to access the committee on internet.
I hoped this thread would give moreof a play by play. Guess not.
Surely cspan will have it up over the weekend. I can record it.
Stevens? YES
Brits? YES
So what is the first hearing about? From what I was seeing this morning, before I left for work, it was all about what things could be done or changed to prevent it future Benghazi’s from happening.
So...when are they gonna get to WHY Benghazi happened in the first place and ultimately WHO is responsible? Because discussing new procedures and requirements is one thing, but what NEEDS to be discussed is having LEADERS that
a) don’t traffic weapons to terrorists;
b) don’t put people in a position where they can’t defend themselves;
c) aren’t corrupt and incompetent traitorous boobs;
d) are actually held accountable and responsible to take care of those they place at embassies;
e) don’t leave said folks without the resources to secure themselves and the embassy and most importantly;
f) don’t leave said folks hanging to get taken hostage, tortured and killed by terrorists
LIVE ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asx7AvzBJ3k
Peter Roskam (IL-06) calls out Starr for not following Stevens’ recommendations on security.
Why is the state dept clinging to this old thing ? this should be the transformational moment as Cummings said.
That’s great! Those two alone set the stage for massive dereliction of duty!
Yup. Nobody is talking about personal responsibility, accountability, or crime and punishment.
All the US Congress cares about is the answer to the following question:
“HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN?”
Gowdy reads from 1999 ARB report and calls out Starr on the issue.
Previously in testimony Starr had said that ARB recommendations had already been implemented since 1988.
Gowdy will catch this later on the replay.
I wonder if they’ll get around to that Turkish Diplomat visiting Stevens that day: what was the business of that visit? Did the diplomat warn Stevens about an impending attack?
Gowdy just pointed out they had a quarter century of recommendations and here we sit with what happened in Benghazi.
Maybe people need to give Trey a chance to get rolling, because you KNOW once he does....he’s like a freight train.
I LOVE THIS MAN. I pointed him out to my boys this morning, and said THIS, THIS man is what an ELECTED OFFICIAL is supposed to be. THIS is what our government SHOULD look like. Honorable men, doing the job WE sent them to do on OUR behalf.
We should never station people in countries where the host country government cannot protect them. We should never have been in Benghazi given the lack of host government protection.
Gowdy going after Hillary!
SoS must PERSONALLY REVIEW security situations.
Gowdy brings up another point from the 1999 ARB - in countries where there is no gov’t the sec of state should personally review.
Starr: No comment
Gowdy: Is that answer privileged?
Awkward moment
Hillary, upon seeing Gowdy’s questioning ..... ordering Depends by the case.
Gowdy knows that simply posting a sign outside a Bank forbidding the stealing of the Bank’s money is less effective that throwing the thief in jail.
Few others in Congress see Punishment as a Deterrent, especially Speaker Boehner.
This dude is trying hard to waste time.
Gowdy: WHY WERE WE THERE?
why were we there (in Libya)?
Starr: these risks indicate evacuation of embassies, etc.
Gowdy: what policies were we doing that required us to forgo all the security risks?
Starr: I was not here at that time, but Stevens knew why he needed to be there.....purpose should be documented.
More processes for risk management....
Gowdy: thanks for bringing it back to Stevens - he was clear the situation was getting risky, and asked for security and none was forthcoming....passes off to Cummings for concluding remarks.
Just Krap! Cummings up again!
But Obama desperately wanted to say that our ousting of Ghadaffi was successful and everything was peaches and cream. Wasn’t his campaign slogan something about Bin Laden dead and GM alive?
Seems like ultimately we may have been there to run arms to terrorists, but that’s not the subject of this hearing. In the meantime, the question if our reason for being there was above-board is why were we there BEFORE it was secure
Of course, that gets back to the guffawing that was done in Iraq when “insurgents” were able to get weapons before we were able to secure them. Maybe it comes down to the idea that it was stupid for us to interfere in Libya’s own civil war, when the regime in power at the time was currently a very good ally against terrorism and those seeking to oust him were largely terrorists themselves... But then it’s the “Obama Doctrine” for the US to oust allies in fighting terrorism, in favor of Muslim extremist terrorists. We’ve done it in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Libya, and Obama’s working on doing it in Syria too...
Ultimately this does come down to “politics” - if “politics” means the Obama Doctrine of supporting Muslim terrorists and shafting everybody else. But that’s a subject for a different hearing.
She is ordering her Depends right now!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.