Benghazi - The Facts are in - Republicans Enter "Ignore the Facts" Mode

The reality in Benghazi was Different, and Murkier, than either the YouTube Video Scenario, or the Republicans Claim that it was a Planned Attack by Al-Qaeda Suggests

Photo by NY Times

  Let's be real, we all know that politicians sometimes stretch the truth to say the least. Sometimes they out right lie, which has always disturbed me as far as why they are allowed to use the media to say things they know are false willingly, and without consequence. Both the Republican and Democratic parties often issue "talking points" for there members and surrogates to use whether it be for a campaign, or for a current issue they expect the media to inquire about. Benghazi was one of such incidents that the Republicans were relentless on. They viciously attacked The President, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice after she went on that Sunday's news magazine shows. The attacks were premature, in that the facts were not known when the Romney campaign made a crucial error in attacking the President for not protecting the Benghazi embassy while events were evolving. Fox News video from May 23, 2013 They made it a political issue when in fact it was a national security issue that was still unfolding. The republicans held numerous hearings and the attacks continued relentlessly and were still going on up to the time of the NT Times article came out on Saturday. At that point House Intelligence Committee chairman Darrell Issa and those advising him decided he was to go on the Sunday news shows and use their new talking points on how to deal with the new facts, ignore them. Double down on what they had been accusing the White House and the Democrats of, that being everything from cover-ups to negligence to lying about what happened. At this point, after a extensive investigation facts are finally clear, but that won't stop the Republicans in the least, from making up whatever they think should be taken from what actually happened.
 

 "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" by David D. Kirkpatrick, in the New York Times, December 28, 2013, reveals the actual FACTS about what happened. This has caused House Intelligence Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA49) and other Republicans to enter the "Ignore The Facts" mode.

 Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

 Fifteen months after Mr. Steven's death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

 One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

 The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

 The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs. Read the entire article

 Yesterday, in an article "Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers Still Think Al-Qaeda is Involved" by The Wire - The Sunday Grind by Conner Simpson, Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers started delivering the Republicans response and talking points. What they did was to ignore the facts, refuse to acknowledge the truth, and out right lie, about what happened in Benghazi and how they handled it. The article said: The New York Times reported local militias were responsible for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed three Americans, that Al Qaeda played no role, and that anger was stoked by an anti-Muslim Youtube video. Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers are still convinced Al Qaeda was behind the attack. Darrell's response was to deny that it wasn't Al-Qaeda and that it had nothing to do with the video. It really disturbs me when these politicians just decide to ignore the truth, even after it's widely known, and to use the media to just make up whatever suits them as to what did, or didn't happen in a given circumstance.

 Mike Rogers said on Fox News Sunday that the Times report doesn't square with intelligence reports he has seen on the attack. "I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that," Rogers said, referring to the notion anger over the video fueled the attacks. Host Chris Wallace asked the House Intelligence Committee chairman whether he thinks the report was designed to wash Hillary Clinton's hands of any responsibility. “I find the timing odd,” Rogers said. “I don’t want to speculate on why they might do it.” Really?!

 I guess this is there world and we're just living in it. The talking points and "preferred" version of the Republican Party have always been 1) The attack was conducted by Al-Qaeda, 2) The Obama White House tried to cover-up that fact prior to the election, and 3) there was no connection to an American-made video that had sparked riots earlier that day in Egypt. But now we know, thanks to David Kirkpatrick, the author of the NY Times article that that is simply no way the case. The author says "The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive Air Power and Logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi, and contrary to claims by some members of Congress it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-Made video denigrating Islam."

That should be the end of the conspiracy right? Ooh no, the Republicans want to continue with their version of what happened and tie it to a Hillary Clinton run for President. Why not, just ignore the truth and make it up as you go along. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) on MSNBC Live today said the report is "accurate" and said "many months ago we (the Congress) got a classified briefing that this report seems to be clearly in line with," and went on to say that "unfortunately some of my Republican colleagues seem to be hell-bent on using this tragedy to further their political ends, they were wrong and as this article shows, they are wrong now." 

When Representative Eliot was asked was he surprised by what Darrell Issa said on the Sunday news shows yesterday, he said no, because I've heard him before, he has known he was wrong then, and he knows he is wrong now."  He said Hillary was an excellent Secretary of State and there was a commission that made recommendations as to Benghazi, she not only implemented them but added to them, so it never happens again. He said, in response to "will the Republicans try to use their version to slow Hillary down should she run for President?" "I think intelligent people can come to intelligent conclusions."

I'm not looking forward to all the lies and just plain garbage that is sure to come.