Second Repub Congressman Admits Benghazi Committee Was ‘Designed To Go After’ Clinton

[GMDino]

Not that we didn't know it...but it refreshing to hear some honesty about it.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/

Quote:A second House Republican has now conceded that the overarching purpose of the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) argued that one of House Republicans’ successes has been using the Benghazi Committee to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers. Though McCarthy tried to walk back his controversial comments, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) argued on Wednesday that the Majority Leader had it right to begin with.

“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna said in an interview on Keeler in the Morning, a radio show in upstate New York. The third-term congressman paused for a moment, perhaps recognizing the importance of what he was about to say, before going on to agree with McCarthy’s original statement.

“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said.

He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

Listen to it (relevant section starts at 9:45):

For years, House Republicans had claimed the Benghazi probe was about investigating the events surrounding the 2012 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, rather than undermining Clinton’s potential presidential bid.

But after McCarthy’s Kinsley gaffe, which was among the factors that doomed his seemingly-inevitable rise to the House Speakership, and now Hanna’s admission, there is growing doubt even among GOPers about the Benghazi Committee’s true purpose.

McCarthy and Hanna aren’t the only Republicans to publicly declare that the Benghazi Committee has been on a partisan quest. Over the weekend, Maj. Bradley Podliska, a Republican investigator formerly working on the Committee, revealed that he had lost his job for refusing to solely focus his investigation on Clinton. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the Committee, denies the charge.

Clinton is set to testify before the Committee, which has now continued longer than the Watergate probe, on October 22nd.

[GodHatesBengals]

All the same people who feigned concern about the four dead Americans for years will completely ignore this thread.

[*michaelsean*]

He didn't admit anything. He speculated. I have no idea why Dems continue to defend this dirtbag family.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-14-2015, 10:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have no idea why Dems continue to defend this dirtbag family.

There's a difference between defending the Clinton family and pointing out that Republicans have a serious obsession with trying to take them down by creating phony scandals. And, BTW, always have.

I feel sorry for all the Republican talk radio listeners, though. Now that this whole thing has amounted to exactly what liberals kept telling them it would amount to, they are left hanging without a good talking point from Rush to deflect their gullibility, thus far at least.

[*PhilHos*]

Sooooooooooooooooooo "in part" means 100% now?

[StLucieBengal]

She was in charge of Benghazi.  Obama already said he was asleep.   And they perp Walked and jailed a guy for a YouTube video to cover up her incompetent mess.  

Seriously dems, why do you all defend that family and their corruption?   Is party so important that you give up on your values?  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Iraq War KIA:  4493
 
Benghazi KIA:  4
 
Everything you need to know about Benghazi summed up by Senator Lindsey Graham. . .
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj598Ugh1-w

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-15-2015, 01:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: She was in charge of Benghazi.  Obama already said he was asleep.   And they perp Walked and jailed a guy for a YouTube video to cover up her incompetent mess.  

Seriously dems, why do you all defend that family and their corruption?   Is party so important that you give up on your values?  

And after millions of dollars and over 3 years, that's all you've got. Yep, solid use of taxpayer money. At least Hillary's poll numbers took a hit so mission accomplished. 

I don't defend their corruption. If the GOP ever manages to go after the legitimate corrupt activities they've been involved in instead of completely phony scandals, I'll give them kudos. 

[fredtoast]

What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy.  Hillary obviously deserves some blame since she was Sec of State at the time, and she has taken the blame for some security lapses under her watch.   If the Republicans really cared about keeping it from happening again then they would be looking for what really went wrong instead of just trying to burn down Hillary.

The whole issue is pretty murky because it deals with activity by the CIA and possibly forces from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).  The attacks were not related to any video.  They were organized attacks from al Qaeda most likely in retaliation for CIA and/or JSOC forces.

Embassy Security was lax for many different reasons.  First of all the Libyan government did not want a large US military presence in the country.  The embassy guards were rent-a-cops from England.

The Clinton defenders will try to deflect the "lax security" issue by claiming that the Republican congress was to blame for cutting the security budget.  While I agree 100% that the Republican congress needs to spend more on embassy security, I doubt it is the real problem here.  I think the State Department went a little too far trying to avoid looking like a military invasive force.  

So while it looks like there are some real policy issues to debate here all the people on the right seem to know about the story is that Obama tried to cover it up.  He blamed it on rioting sweeping through the middle east over a video.  It appears that the administration tried to fudge the facts at the beginning, but they retracted the story in just a couple of weeks and no one gained anything from the "cover up".  

The fact is that we have all this drama over a "cover up" that lasted two weeks and never benefited anyone.  And, meanwhile no one is really talking about what should be done to make sure something like this doesn't happen again.

It seems to be the same old BS the US has been pulling for decades.  Ambassadors preaching diplomkacy from am embassy just 10 minutes from a heavely armed CIA operation center.  The one thing I did learn from all of the was the existence of JSOC forces.  All you paranoid types will love these guys.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-15-2015, 09:21 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And after millions of dollars and over 3 years, that's all you've got. Yep, solid use of taxpayer money. At least Hillary's poll numbers took a hit so mission accomplished. 

I don't defend their corruption. If the GOP ever manages to go after the legitimate corrupt activities they've been involved in instead of completely phony scandals, I'll give them kudos. 

Improper donations to their foundation that reflect favorable treatment from her office. Why were they taking this money? Same thing they did in Haiti, grew the foundation over contracts to rebuild the country. The whole family is corrupt.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2015, 05:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Improper donations to their foundation that reflect favorable treatment from her office.   Why were they taking this money? 

These allegations are specious at best.  Many of the donations were made before Hillary was even Sec of State.  And many of the "benefits" were just the result of on-going policy decisions that also helped other parties that never donated a thing.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-19-2015, 05:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Improper donations

I'm against them and in favor of legislation that will prevent them. How about you? I take it you're a huge opponent of Citizens United?

Don't even bother answering, I already know you're just feigning outrage over something you're in total favor of.

[6andcounting]

(10-19-2015, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy.  Hillary obviously deserves some blame since she was Sec of State at the time, and she has taken the blame for some security lapses under her watch.   If the Republicans really cared about keeping it from happening again then they would be looking for what really went wrong instead of just trying to burn down Hillary.

The whole issue is pretty murky because it deals with activity by the CIA and possibly forces from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).  The attacks were not related to any video.  They were organized attacks from al Qaeda most likely in retaliation for CIA and/or JSOC forces.

Embassy Security was lax for many different reasons.  First of all the Libyan government did not want a large US military presence in the country.  The embassy guards were rent-a-cops from England.

The Clinton defenders will try to deflect the "lax security" issue by claiming that the Republican congress was to blame for cutting the security budget.  While I agree 100% that the Republican congress needs to spend more on embassy security, I doubt it is the real problem here.  I think the State Department went a little too far trying to avoid looking like a military invasive force.  

So while it looks like there are some real policy issues to debate here all the people on the right seem to know about the story is that Obama tried to cover it up.  He blamed it on rioting sweeping through the middle east over a video.  It appears that the administration tried to fudge the facts at the beginning, but they retracted the story in just a couple of weeks and no one gained anything from the "cover up".  

The fact is that we have all this drama over a "cover up" that lasted two weeks and never benefited anyone.  And, meanwhile no one is really talking about what should be done to make sure something like this doesn't happen again.

It seems to be the same old BS the US has been pulling for decades.  Ambassadors preaching diplomkacy from am embassy just 10 minutes from a heavely armed CIA operation center.  The one thing I did learn from all of the was the existence of JSOC forces.  All you paranoid types will love these guys.

I just want to know why the administration initially tried to pretend it was because of a YouTube video. They eventually admitted it was a terrorist attack, but at that point it was so obvious they had no choice but to admit it.

That's my minor disagreement - if you can call it that - but I think that's the first time I've read a fair and (mostly) impartial analysis of the situation. Great job America and the media - you got out did by a guy named FredToast on a Bengals' message board.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-14-2015, 09:46 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: All the same people who feigned concern about the four dead Americans for years will completely ignore this thread.

No, not at all, it happened on Her watch. Her decisions eventually led to the outcome of those 4 getting killed.

(10-15-2015, 01:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Iraq War KIA:  4493
 
Benghazi KIA:  4
 
Everything you need to know about Benghazi summed up by Senator Lindsey Graham. . .
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj598Ugh1-w

US Diplomats killed:
Iraq: 0
Benghazi: 1

Stephens did request additional security several times prior to the attack. Hillary's State group denied it repeatedly and while they were at it, reduced the security that was there.

It was clearly a bad decision that was made on her watch, and she has owned up to it, and that's the way it should end.

The point of this is to show that she made a bad decision that cost 4 people their lives.

Now add this to the email scandal, where she blatantly ignored Federal Laws about Emails and secured servers. That means another bad decision on her part.

Point is, do we want someone in office that seems to make some poor decisions regarding the safety of US Citizens and Secrets?

When it comes down to vote time, people will forget all about this stuff, so really "what difference does it make?"

And yes, I want both sides to be accountable for their decisions when they are directly responsible for poor/costly mistakes.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-22-2015, 12:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now add this to the email scandal, where she blatantly ignored Federal Laws about Emails and secured servers. That means another bad decision on her part.

I don't think all these formal investigations on the Email issue are going to get much out of her, or do the right much good tbh.  Bottom line though, she really did **** this one up, comes down to 2 possibilities at this point: A) She knew what she was doing and did a terrible job trying to cover it up with someone who obviously has NO EXPERIENCE with digital forensics, thus a blatant lie to the american public; or B) She's not lying, and actually thought her personal email servers held the same security levels as the state department, thus completely ignorant and shouldn't be anywhere near policies that will affect the development of technology for generations to come.

Worst part of it all.  Scenario A seems to be just fine with our current turkeyneck populace.  FML

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-22-2015, 12:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: US Diplomats killed:
Iraq: 0
Benghazi: 1

Did you just make that comparison?  Seriously?

[JustWinBaby]

(10-21-2015, 09:52 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I just want to know why the administration initially tried to pretend it was because of a YouTube video. They eventually admitted it was a terrorist attack, but at that point it was so obvious they had no choice but to admit it. 

I agree it was unnecessary.  And it ultimately wouldn't have mattered, but in a close election it potentially could have swung up to 1% of the voters and been decisive.

They covered it up and deceived the American people.  But Democrats only care about that when Republicans do it, and vice-versa.  And because of that this will continue to happen until voters start holding their own party accountable for it.

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2015, 12:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The point of this is to show that she made a bad decision that cost 4 people their lives.

But her decision was just a small pert of the problem.  How much more security would have been required to insure that no one would have died in the attack?  This was a large, well-armed Al Queda force.  Even the reinforcements from the CIA compound had a hard time fighting them off.  If CIA agents can't get out then maybe we should be looking at what led to the attack instead what effect a few extra armed guards might have had.

It is like responding to the problem of kids playing with knives by blaming the person who didn't buy enough band aids.

They are ignoring the important part of the investigation in order to turn it into an attack on Hillary.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-21-2015, 09:01 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I'm against them and in favor of legislation that will prevent them. How about you? I take it you're a huge opponent of Citizens United?

Don't even bother answering, I already know you're just feigning outrage over something you're in total favor of.

Not in favor of these bundled donations at all. These are exactly the reason why we do not have any more candidates .

[StLucieBengal]

(10-21-2015, 02:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: These allegations are specious at best.  Many of the donations were made before Hillary was even Sec of State.  And many of the "benefits" were just the result of on-going policy decisions that also helped other parties that never donated a thing.

Around the uranium deal? That her office had to sign off on...