Investigative Responses to Attacks

[KeithE]

Number of Investigations over Benghazi: 8

Number of Investigations concerning 9/11: 2
1) Joint Congressional Inquiry that
2) The 9/11 Commission - started 441 days after 9/11 with a White House insider () tightly directing the “investigation” and writing.

Hmmm sympathetic (to the Bush administration) 9/11 investigator, and several witch hunting Benghazi investigators.
------------------
Cost of Benghazi’s Investigations: for all 8 investigations as of 10/16/15.

Cost of 9/11 Investigations:

Hmmm $20M and counting for Benghazi supposedly for intel/security failures only and $9M for 9/11 for intel/security failures.
-----------------
Number of warnings about Benghazi: 0 specific warnings, only after the fact questioning about lack of security at embassies. Obama’s / Clinton’s State Dept budget requests for embassy security was cut by the GOP-led House to the tune of .

Number of warnings received by Bush administration about 9/11: specific warnings (e.g. Osama Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda led, “hijacking attacks in New York City”, “bin Laden was 'very disappointed' that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning 'large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001' " ) culminating with the which Bush ignored.

Bush was either extremely negligent as Trump has trumpeted, or far worse.
-------------------
Number of killed in Benghazi: 4

Number of killed in 9/11: and untold millions who died due to our retaliatory wars.

Staggering difference in investigative responses in relation to scope of tragedies.
-----------------------

Tomorrow we can watch the continuation of one of the 8 Benghazi investigations which have been (at least partly) a political witch hunt as admitted by several participants (repugs and dems).

Sorry to bring 9/11 truth up again; I could go on all night with other evidences (which I’ll spare you and me from). This focusses on the differences of investigative responses (Benghazi vs 9/11) to think about as the Benghazi interview of Hilliary goes on tomorrow.

[David Flick]

[Tim Bonney]

What you've pointed out is that the Republican party is interested in winning and not in governing. Their current attitude is that the most important thing is to discredit the President and Democrats so they win. It doesn't matter if doing so helps or even hurts the country.

That is the only way you can explain the constant investigations, the continual voting over and over again to repeal the Affordable Care Act even when they know they don't have the votes to repeal it, and the threats over and over again to shut down the government.

The Republican party isn't doing their part to govern because they'd rather the country fail than Obama to get any credit for something positive.

[Sandy]

If it's out there some where, take a listen to this week's "Face the Nation." Trey Gowdy basically ran as far and as fast as he could from even remotely placing any actual "blame" on Hillary Clinton as secretary of state for the attack. I'd like to have the time to watch the hearing today, to see where it goes. Basically, as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, this won't really be a hearing, it will be questions that will be buried in speeches, and amounts to a debate between politicians. And, as she also pointed out, Hillary Clinton is a far better debater, when it comes to politics, than any Republican on that committee.

The "crash and burn" that has already been experienced by the Republicans due to Kevin McCarthy's admission, and several former committee members substantiating the atmosphere inside as a political witch hunt has already resulted in making Benghazi a non-issue. Between the FBI and the state department's policy, the "email scandal" has also failed to materialize. I think the GOP handed Mrs. Clinton the Presidency with the circus atmosphere of their primary runs, but this will likely be the icing on the cake.

It's even hard to find media information on most of the other "investigations," one of which allegedly discovered that the lack of security at Benghazi was brought about by Paul Ryan, who as a member of the appropriations committee, vetoed the money necessary to get it done.

[Neil Heath]

Years ago now I read an interview with a military commander, in Europe I think, who said he had offered extra security personnel to the ambassador before it happened, but the ambassador had declined the offer. I have no idea where that source would be now.

[KeithE]

Let’s continue with the comparison of the Investigations surrounding Benghazi and that surrounding 9/11.

Investigations time spent interviewing Hillary Clinton about Benghazi: 11 hours of grilling just yesterday, under oath on live TV (not to mention her other time before several of the other 7 Benghazi investigations)

Investigations time spent interviewing Bush/Cheney: 1 hour to the sympathetic 9/11 Commission, and as they demanded - not under oath, done jointly, not on TV, and that no record be kept. Watch . They did not give any testimony to the 1 other 9/11 investigation (Joint Congressional Committee on 9/11).

Far more accountability required of Clinton than Bush/Cheney ....
--------------------------------
Supposed crime of Clinton: Not providing for more embassy security.

Supposed crime of Bush/Cheney: The light version is that they ignored . Read it! Heavier version is that they overtook the Al Qaeda planned 9/11 attacks (in NYC) and enhanced them with two other planes, etc.

.... for a far lesser supposed crime ......
--------------------------------

Possible motives for Clinton’s supposed crime: Hmmm what would that be? Maybe she had an affair with Chris Stephens that went bad?? (TIC)

Possible motives for Bush/Cheney’s supposed crime:
1) Securing a Oil pipeline through Afghanistan. After oil pipeline talks broke off with the Taliban, they threatened on May 15, 2001 "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs”. READ especially starting at Jan-Feb 2001 (right after Cheney/Bush took over). And read their backup links as well.
2) Complete the job his daddy didn’t do in Iraq as Bush was . So much so he . (btw, why no testimony by Bush/Cheney about this???)
3) Securing Iraq’s oil. For this unfolding (and untold) story, read both pages; tis excellently written/documented book (or at least the reviews). For the longer view, read .
4) A "catalyzing event” (a “new Pear Harbor”) to further militarize the USA as called for in the Project for a New American Century's (PNAC’s) Rebuilding American Defenses 2000 (required reading by DoD contractors like myself). Quote from that document: "this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” ; look at links other than IV (background and motive), if you are patriotic enough to do so.

.... for what motive?....
------------------------------------
Incriminating evidence vs Clinton about Benghazi: Emails / other records reveal many instances of people asking for more funding for security that she ignored (along with many other requests for funding no doubt).

Incriminating evidence vs Bush/Cheney about 9/11: Too many to mention but I’ll mention two that are specific to Bush and Cheney.
1) Bush himself said he saw a live feed of the first tower being hit while waiting outside the Florida classroom. How could that be? since there was no national TV coverage of that first plane event? But if he knew what was to happen, he might be watching a live secure feed. Watch .
2) Cheney’s apparent stand down order vs plane approaching Pentagon - Norm Mineta’s testimony before 9/11 Commission that was never published by Zelikow. Watch .

... for no evidence of nefarious action (plenty of evidence of inaction in hindsight)..
------------------------------------

But has Bush/Cheney ever been called on the proverbial carpet for their inaction??? (Trump is right-on on that point).

Astounding double standard in investigating. What gives America??? and what gives American Press??? Demand accountability of all politicians (regardless of party).

Again I could go on and on all weekend about 9/11 truth matters. There is so much more! PM me if you want more and I will get to it the next couple of weeks while my wife is on a cruise with her sister (i.e. I have some time now).

[Sandy]

Not sure about all of the 9-11 conspiracy stuff. I do agree that Trump is right, that it occurred under the Bush administration, and is therefore a sign of inadequacies in national security, and perhaps in immigration policy, that were characteristic of the general incompetence of that whole eight year period of time. Certainly, the Republicans are quick to assign blame for just about everything that happens under the Obama Administration, why not be fair?

With CNN and Rasmussen poll numbers showing an ever increasing majority of Americans believing that an eighth Benghazi investigation committee, held during a political campaign, was indeed, as Representative Cummings pointed out, nothing more than an expenditure of taxpayer dollars to try to bring down a political candidate, and, like the other Benghazi investigative committees, has discovered nothing new, no conspiracy of wrongdoing, no secret plots, no deleted emails (the 30,000 that they keep referring to are personal emails which the FBI has in their possession, but did not submit because they are not relevant to the case), nothing in fact to suggest that what happened in Benghazi was the result of incompetence or conspiracy. I've predicted all along that it would come to nothing, but I was wrong about that. It is going to come to something, basically an weapon in the Clinton campaign that will severely damage the Republican's chances of reclaiming the White House in 2016. I'd be willing to wager that it will make inroads into their congressional majority as well.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

nails my point here. This chart modestly* summaries that point.

Both were nominally** about failures of preparedness and intel. Should have been far more to investigate about 9/11/01 than 9/11/12.



* Clinton’s testimony was under oath, on TV, in front of several unsympathetic inquisitors, and is recorded for history. Bush/Chney’s testimony was none of these things.

** We all should know that the Benghazi inquisition of Clinton was political.

[Tim Bonney]

Benghazi is all politics and nothing but politics. There is nothing new to discover. The GOP leadership accidentally admitted the real purpose behind the continued investigation is to make Clinton look bad.

[Lamar Wadsworth]

I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton and will not vote for her in the primary because she voted in favor of the US invasion of Iraq, which led to the most unnecessary war since Vietnam. I will reluctantly vote for her if she wins the nomination, because there are no competent candidates on the Republican side. Having said that, I have been in her corner on this whole Benghazi mess, and now some Congressional Republicans have actually admitted what we knew all along, that it was a maliciously motivated "investigation" intended to do nothing but derail her chances of becoming president. I sympathize with Clinton here because I have been on the receiving end of a malicious hatchet job "investigation." Back in 1990, I had a dissident faction in the church I was serving in Baltimore that hired a crooked private detective to do an "investigation" that produced nothing but a hodgepodge of outright fabrications, distortions, and innuendoes in order to try to force me out as pastor. They succeeded in splitting a church, and all that they proved was that the state of Maryland is criminally negligent in licensing and regulating private detectives, and that some people will never let truth or moral decency get in the way of them getting what they want.

[Tim Bonney]

I don't know how it could be done. But there needs to be some standard by which congress can spend millions of dollars investigating things and people. What an utter waste of 4.5 Million dollars of your and my tax money.

It is sad that investigations by congress can basically continue without any resolution simply to scapegoat people.

If Joe Biden had run I'd have had a harder time deciding who to support in the caucus. But at this time I'm planning on supporting Hilary.

[KeithE]

I think most of the USA will favor ending the Benghazi investigations very quickly.

But we all should be asking (actually demanding) a real 9/11 investigation with under oath testimony from many (Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Eberhardt, Guiliani, Zelikow, Rove, and the many whistleblowers - Colleen Rowley, Louis Freeh, Susan Lindhauer, Sybil Edmunds, Richard Clarke, Able Danger's Anthony Schaeffer......).

Any agreement?