John McCain alleges Benghazi cover-up

As anxious as Democrats seem to want to bury the mysteries surrounding the attack, the Republicans appear to be determined to forge ahead until they get answers.

A shame that this has to be a partisan issue. The Benghazi survivors, for example.... doesn't anyone find it odd that nobody has interviewed them and Hillary Clinton did not even know how many there were when she testified?

Absent partisanship, this isn't an issue at all.

I consider four dead Americans an issue. But maybe that is just me.

Rory, you got that right, I'm still waiting on the cover up investigation on WMD's. The Iraq war is the biggest crime of them all. A made up war, amazing.
Talk about cover-up and American history, duh, talk is cheap but prosecutions and punishments in court of law is real, all the rest is just political mud slinging and posturing.

So let us get into the facts. Conservative pointing finger at the President Obama over Benghazi is pure hypocritical nonsense. And for Sen. McCain to allege a cover-up is the height of hypocrisy.

"The war that began March 19, 2003, was justified to the country by alarming claims that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida terrorists—almost all of which turned out to be false. Some of the most senior officials in the U.S. government, including President Bush himself, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asserted these claims in public with absolute confidence, even while privately, ranking U.S. military officers and intelligence professionals were voicing their doubts. Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War, a documentary special hosted by Rachel Maddow that will air Monday night on MSNBC at 9 p.m."

How the Bush administration sold the Iraq war
Michael Isikoff
10:59 AM on 02/16/2013

Conservative pointing finger at the President Obama over Benghazi is pure hypocritical nonsense.

What is hypocritical?

The war that began March 19, 2003, was justified to the country by alarming claims that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida terrorists—almost all of which turned out to be false.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



List of Democrats who Voted for Iraq War

Max Baucus (Mont.)
Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Joe Biden (Del.)
John Breaux (La.)
Maria Cantwell (Wash.)
Jean Carnahan (Mo.)
Tom Carper (Del.)
Max Cleland (Ga.)
Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)
Tom Daschle (S.D.)
Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
John Edwards (N.C.)
Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)
Tom Harkin (Iowa)
Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
John Kerry (Mass.)
Herb Kohl (Wis.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
Zell Miller (Ga.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Harry Reid (Nev.)
John Rockefeller (W.Va.)
Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
Bob Torricelli (N.J.)

And it was still a false and unilateral attack on another country, period.

If you believe it was false, that is cool - just make sure you assign the blame properly. As far as Benghazi, it was a COVER-UP. Why?

P.O.L.I.T.I.C.S.

Colin Powell on the Bush Administration's Iraq War Mistakes
May 13, 2012 12:00 AM EDT

Colin Powell reflects on lessons from the battlefield to the halls of power—including the mistakes of the Iraq War, his infamous U.N. speech, and the crimes at Abu Ghraib.

Chaos in Baghdad

On the evening of Aug. 5, 2002, President Bush and I met in his residence at the White House to discuss the pros and cons of the Iraq crisis. Momentum within the administration was building toward military action, and the president was increasingly inclined in that direction.


I had no doubt that our military would easily crush a smaller Iraqi army, much weakened by Desert Storm and the sanctions and other actions that came afterward. But I was concerned about the unpredictable consequences of war. According to plans being confidently put forward, Iraq was expected to somehow transform itself into a stable country with democratic leaders 90 days after we took Baghdad. I believed such hopes were unrealistic. I was sure we would be in for a longer struggle.

I had come up with a simple expression that summarized this idea for the president: “If you break it, you own it.” It was shorthand for the profound reality that if we take out another country’s government by force, we instantly become the new government, responsible for governing the country and for the security of its people until we can turn all that over to a new, stable, and functioning government. We are now in charge. We have to be prepared to take charge."

Furthermore,

Unreliable Sources

You can’t make good decisions unless you have good information and can separate facts from opinion and speculation. Facts are verified information, which is then presented as objective reality. The rub here is the verified. How do you verify verified? Facts are slippery, and so is verification. Today’s verification may not be tomorrow’s. It turns out that facts may not really be facts; they can change as the verification changes; they may only tell part of the story, not the whole story; or they may be so qualified by verifiers that they’re empty of information.

Newsweek Daily Beast, author Colin Powell

You fools, politicians who when with President G.W. Bush, voted that way because the evidence to attack Iraq was base on a lie.
I'll take Colin Powell inside view anytime. President Obama, "thank God" is ending the that mess and getting out.

Renee, you can believe anything you like, you can't nor can the Republican Party can prove a Cover-up. Where mistake made, you bet.
The world is not perfect, I repeat attacks on our citizens or military, our embassies have occurred in all previous administrations. Beirut, Lebanon On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber slammed his truck into U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines. Then President Ronald Reagan was in-charge.

Many embassies attacked during the Bush years before Benghazi
Benghazi : Libya | Nov 05, 2012 at 8:11 AM PST BY VeronicaS

Where was all that concern for our men and women serving in embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred?
Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?
Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?
How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?
There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.
Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.
In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.
In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.
Notice the dates, all before the Obama administration.



I agree in Congressional hearings, the right to questions and to ask for explanation, that is the right of the peoples Representative to do. But to crucify President Obama is just plan politics.

I repeat attacks on our citizens or military, our embassies have occurred in all previous administrations.

Yes, Richard. But did they request help repeatedly in the months leading up to the attacks and were denied?

It isn't about the 4 dead Americans. If Republicans cared about that they might be concerned about the 4,000 plus dead Americans in Bush's war in Iraq, started with lies on which congress based their support for the war.

This is about a bunch of drummed up stupidity relating to the deaths of 4 Americans, whose death Republicans are perfectly willing to use as fodder in their ongoing attempt to defame the black president they are never going to accept.

It isn't about the 4 dead Americans. Actually, that is exactly what it is about - the fact that it was preventable makes it horrific, and that the fact that it was diminished from the beginning by people who pointed fingers at anyone else other than themselves makes it criminal. You can try to deflect by talking about Iraq or whatever you want. But the issue is Benghazi and how it should never have happened.

So like what will you do about it? Nothing, but beat your chest, You folks really have nerve to tell me some other politician would have done better.
President Reagan after the attack that occurred in Beirut, Lebanon were 241 Marines were killed, pulled the troops out of Lebanon. That is all he did. Were is the outrage, why didn't he know?

Richard, I don't think Reagan had too much to do with Benghazi. You have spoken about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Cheney, Rumsfeld, weapons of mass destruction, Colin Powell, Bush, Baghdad, Beirut, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Reagan, and many other people and places. Do you know what this post is actually about with its intended message? My main question to you is how can you simply dismiss the Benghazi incident, where four Americans were killed just to show unconditional loyalty to President Obama?

Fair and balance is all I ask.

What are you talking about?

What is fair and balanced about the Obama administration refusing to send help to Americans under siege?

Talking about Iraq and many other previous incidents is by way of comparison. Not comparison of the events alone, but of the reaction, especially by conservatives, to those events. The reaction to Benghazi is out of whack and reflects the intense hatred conservatives have for the POTUS, rather than any real concern for the loss of lives. The comparison reveals this because they were so unphased by previous deaths.

The reaction to Benghazi is out of whack and reflects the intense hatred conservatives have for the POTUS, rather than any real concern for the loss of lives. Out of whack?????

are you referring to the fact that Mitt Romney, the wealthy, the GOP was blamed for Benghazi? Or do you mean when the GOP was blamed for non-existent budgetary issues? Perhaps you are referring to the repeated notion that there was a "spontaneous protest" that was spurred on by a YouTube video that was falsely blamed weeks after the attack? Perhaps you mean that there was no investigation of the scene for weeks after the attack because of "political infighting" among the State Department, the CIA and the FBI which led to the scene not being secured and valuable evidence being destroyed? Perhaps the politicizing you are referring to is in reference to the fact that before they were supposed to testify, David Petraeus, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton EACH had excuses why they could not testify? Perhaps you are referring to the journalists, none of whom seem to be asking questions about the survivors of the attack, who could have given the information from the beginning that there was no protest? Or, the fact that instead of reporting on Benghazi and the four Americans that were murdered, the journalists were reporting on things like Lance Armstrong and other fluffy topics? Perhaps you are upset because people testified that they felt that their REPEATED requests for help went ignored, unanswered and denied (and incidentally, having NOTHING to do with the budget)? Maybe you are referring to the Susan Rice talking points, where references to terrorist attacks were deliberately removed, but nobody will say WHO did it or WHY???

Because if that is the case, I agree entirely.

What are you going on about? I don't know what fifth dimensional portal you get your information from, but try once in a while to join us in the real world.

The American embassy in Libya was attacked and four Americans died. This represents less than 1/1000th of the cost in American lives of the illegal war in Iraq, which conservative Republican George W. Bush started on a whim and cajoled Congress and the UN with lies to try and justify. Yet the reaction to those deaths at Benghazi is 1000 times the reaction conservatives had to the loss of American lives in the war. That is out of whack by any definition you might want to entertain. Any real world definition.

Give your head a shake, something is loose up there.

The American embassy in Libya was attacked and four Americans died. Yep. And nobody is answering for it. You can continue to deflect by bringing up Iraq all you want - we can talk about Iraq, but it is a totally different situation.

The situations are different. But the issue is not the war in Iraq, nor is it the attack on Benghazi. The issue is the conservative insistance that there was some kind of malfeasance or incompetence at play in Benghazie for which they are insisting that someone's head (Obama's is obviously their preference) should roll, metaphorically, to account for it. Yet, no conservative is asking for accountability over the thousands dead in Iraq.

This makes all their crocodile tears over the deaths in Benghazi ring very hollow indeed. No one is answering for Iraq, which was a much bigger deal and amounts to a crime against humanity, a crime for which several members of the Bush administration should be sitting in prison in The Hague, but there are crickets on the right to be heard about it.

When you find balance, when you have outrage for the much larger loss of life, then perhaps your manufactured outrage over the loss of four lives will be somewhat believable. But it's not. Not at all. It's phony. It's a convenience.

And that is a bigger insult to the families of those four dead Americans than anything else. You have turned them into a political football.

Responsibility needs to be assigned, heads need to roll, and the American People deserve to know what ACTUALLY happened, why, and where in HELL the survivors are.

Then, we need to hear from THEM.

The Benghazi Terror Attack has been diminished from the beginning. Here is a (small) sample of the bad behavior:

Time Magazine's Joe Klein made a telling statement on "Meet the Press." He said, "This business about the...Libya consulate has been like the October mirage — it really isn't an issue."

President Obama famously referred to the brutal killings as "not optimal" and as "bumps in the road."

New York Times White House correspondent Helene Cooper referred to the attack on Benghazi as "peripheral to what's going on right now."

Eric Nordstrom, a former Regional Security Officer, testified that requests for additional security in Libya were ordered not to be made for what he described as "political reasons."

It has also been revealed that a team, known as the "Commander's In-extremis Force," was designed specifically for quick reaction to unforeseen emergencies and was an hour away. However, "...confusion about what was happening on the ground in Benghazi—and State Department concerns about violating Libyan sovereignty—made a military rescue mission impractical, the officials say."

CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend stated that the FBI took so long to get to the scene, due in part, to "infighting." She said, "They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country."

Charles Woods, the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, described Hillary Clinton's reaction to him on the Lars Larson radio show. He said that Mrs. Clinton explained that they were going to prosecute the man who made the video.

"State Department officials said 'others' in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department's conclusion, reporters were told."

The White House, through Obama campaign officials Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod, blames Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

Press Secretary Jay Carney Blamed "Republicans" and "Millionaires and Billionaires"

Joe Biden claimed during the Vice Presidential debate that the White House knew nothing of security needs in Benghazi

The Mainstream Media blames Mitt Romney for "politicizing" the Benghazi attack.

Oh and WHERE are the SURVIVORS?

I suspect the survivors want no part of what you and your lapdog are demanding. They, I suspect, would prefer their anonymity to becoming a cause celebre in a cause that likely disgusts them.

I seriously doubt that the survivors want to keep the truth hidden. They to are victims of what happened at Benghazi leaving 4 Americans dead!

They probably find your wild-eyed accusations to be repugnant.

lol, "wild-eyed accusations" - everything I said is sourced - and Big Mama is correct - the fact that Hillary Clinton did not know the number of survivors when she testified is very strange.

John McCain is a loon. Plain and simple.

Well, can you be more specific? Has he made an inaccurate statement?

Oh yeah, Sen. McCain said, "cover-up." Now he has to prove it with a Congressional hearing, the out come would be, some kind of punishment after the full report is given and voted on by both the House and Senate.
However, after all is said and done which all red meat for the right-wing, teaheads, and conservatives. Nothing, I repeat nothing will settle on President Obama, he will remain un-marked by this regretful tragic episode which has occurred often in many previous administrations.

Sen. McCain said, "cover-up." As he should - or we would have heard from the Benghazi survivors - Hillary Clinton didn't even know how many there are...????

regretful tragic episode

AVOIDABLE tragic episode.

Covert Criminal Episode.

Criminal is right.

Oh, look, Renee's entourage has arrived, or at least part of it.

McCain is a loon. His opposition to Hagel, despite past support of him, is but one example.

McCain's opposition to Hagel is what you have? That is why he is a "loon"? Did watch the confirmation hearing?

No funding no more war. Go ask the Republicans where is money for protection. Soft foot print in play here, wrong move and bad miscalculation.
Both members of overseas operation were advise they are called House and Senate Committees. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) in the House it is called the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI)
They both are given briefing by the administration behind close doors on every aspect and actions that takes place overseas. They know the strength and weakness of all of our embassies. Benghazi, Libya Consulate did not exist in a vacuum. The set up from day one was well known by those Select Committee Members and they are all free to make their concern know. Now ask about that, no I don't guess you will. interesting the silence I hear.

Your comment is all over the place. What is your point? Go ask the Republicans where is money for protection.

Still, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb testified in October that the size of the attack -- and not the money -- was the issue.
Asked if there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase the security force, she said: "No." She added: "This was an unprecedented attack in size." Asked again about budget issues, Lamb said: "Sir, if it's a volatile situation, we will move assets to cover that."

Anyone who truly believes that we went to Iraq based solely on the thoughts and actions only associated with the Republicans, and that it would even be possible without involvement by the Democrats as part of the decision is a political idiot...Period...

I think I got that one covered ;-)

The president (Bush) lied to congress (yellow-cake uranium, mobile missile launchers, etc.) and they were gullible enough to fall for it. If someone lies to you to get you to support something your support does not exonerate them for their lies.

LOL - Biden, the Clintons, the long list of Democrats who voted for the war - they are all just so gullible! It was Bush's fault!

Rory they refuse to listen to facts, even I was convince by the then Sec. of State Colin Powell presentation at the U.N. But as the real story came out it was all about oil and hegemony of the United States and the neo-cons theory of America changing the landscape of the middle-east.
Who would reconsider and rethink their position. I knew after 9-11 President Bush was going to give Americans their blood revenge, do what his daddy didn't do, topple Saddam Hussein.

LOL Ha ha ha ha ha ha, There is nothing more to say about the lunacy that Richard spouts.

Rationality seems like lunacy to the irrational. Richard is spot on.

I like your "evidence" that McCain is a loon, Rory. But for you to agree with "after 9-11 President Bush was going to give Americans their blood revenge," what more can I say?

Anyone who thinks for one moment that good old Saddam did not send his bad boy weapons over the border to Syria before the invasion is deluded. But then we have to remember that these people would sit around the campfire singing "Kumbaya, while the world around them goes up in flames. And we also have to remember that if it were not for the pressure put on the governments by these very people in the first Gulf war to not go and finish good old Saddam there would have been no need to go back in with the loss of lives on all sides. The blame rests solely on the shoulders of these appeasers for those lives lost no matter how they try to spin it all.

Yeah, that makes sense. Saddam Hussein, who was more than willing to invade Iran (at the encouragement of the United States, by the way), and more than willing to use nerve gas on his own citizens during that conflict, and guilty of all kinds of human rights abuses, murder, torture and oppression, prefered to give away all his weapons of mass destruction rather than use them on invading American troops and try to save his own ass.

Yeah, rather than use these powerful weapons that might have bought him some time, he preferred to hide in an underground hole and get arrested and hung by the neck until dead. What, did he have some moral epiphany? Did he suddenly not want to kill Americans, even though he was glad to kill his own people? Do you think he valued American lives more than Iraqi lives, just because you do? Do you think he feared the consequences of using those weapons and riling the Americans? What more consequences could there be than his own execution and up to a million dead Iraqis?

Far more likely is that since the country fought a war in the in the 1980s and another in the early 1990s, lost to America and its allies in that war, suffered for more than a decade under one of the most stringent sanction regimens in modern history, that his supply of WMDs was actually exhausted.

That is why George Bush made up a bunch of bullsh*t about yellow cake uranium and mobile missile launchers, because both the frequent UN inspections and America's own intelligence community had told him the WMDs were long gone, history, used up in two wars.

The war in Iraq was about access to oil and about Bush the younger trying to show daddy that he could do something daddy failed to do, toppling Saddam. It was about a petulant child with too much power trying to overcome his self-loathing, sense of inadequacy and daddy-issues and using American and Iraqi lives as pawns in his game.

Oh, and it was also about Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush (in order of their relative authority within the administration) personally making enormous fortunes off the war.

The bottom line is that the Benghazi "terrorist" attack took place on September 11, and our government still cannot answer the simple questions from the American people. I am just as concerned with the common citizens who dismiss that secrecy as being irrelevant as I am am with the corruption and deception that is Washington. How are some not concerned when Americans can be murdered and the activity that is responsible for those deaths is kept secret from other Americans. And just as Renee has asked many times, "Where are the survivors?" They could give some pretty good insight on what happened that night. Of course, it is a coverup. That is what hiding the facts to the American people is, in the true sense of the word.

I am concerned by the lack of proportionality of your concern.

About his concern for the survivors? Or for Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and their families?

Concerned that this tragic but rather small event is so much more important than much larger tragedies that are ignored because you cannot blame Obama for them.

tragic but rather small event

And that sums it up.

Yes it does. You have no perspective and will inflate the relevance of anything if you think it will serve your primary goal of discrediting a president you cannot abide because of your racial prejudice.

It's pretty obvious the administration just wants it to "go away," reacting first with misinformation, then suppressing factual details and witness to it all. They dropped the ball big time at a minimum, and a case of extreme negligence at the other end... not to mention the covert mission behind it all likely driving the bus.
More Fast and Furious anyone...?

You know these Constitution hating liberals could care less about the 4 men who died due to the Obama administrations incompetence and/ or refusal to provide the security and support that was asked for by those at the consulate. If Obama starts beheading folks on national TV they will cheer him on. They just do not care about American lives. They will condone any evil he perpetuates and will celebrate it .