Senate Democrats agree – Benghazi was a terrorist attack

A Senate Committee has released a BIPARTISAN!!! report stating that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack and that it could have been prevented.

Color us shocked.

Congressional Democrats for the first time joined the GOP to condemn the State Department for refusing security measures they say could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.


The report was prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and found that State, then under Hillary Clinton, refused requests to boost security despite warnings from the CIA and its own staff about the danger of militant attacks.

“The attacks were preventable…”

So, Secretary Clinton, in answer to your question, “At this point what difference does it make?” actually, it makes a lot of difference. To quote Joe Biden, “This is a big f***ing deal.”

And Mrs. Clinton, we’re pretty sure this isn’t over yet. Not by a long shot. No pun intended.

Not only could the attack have been prevented, but it seems the latest effort by the New York Times to pull both the administration’s and Clinton’s chestnuts out of the fire is falling by the wayside. You’ll recall that earlier this month the Times current incarnation of Walter Duranty published an investigative tale about how “it was the video” and not terrorists were involved in the attack.

New facts are coming out, more frequently now, that show that little meme to be a steaming pile of smelly stuff.

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

It’s looking more and more like “it was the video” is turning into “If you like your consulate and your ambassador, you can keep your consulate and your ambassador.”

As a side note, The Curmudgeons are a military family. United States Marine Corps. We take very personal umbrage at what appears to be a commander-in-chief who knew our assets were under attack from terrorists and did nothing but get a good night’s sleep so he could be fresh when he spoke to contributors at a fund raiser the following day in Nevada.

Not to mention a Secretary of State – and Presidential wannabe – who told the mother of one of heroes of Benghazi, at his funeral, “We’re going to get the people who made that video…” when she knew full well it was a terrorist attack.

We find it insulting to our military at large and especially to military families that these people can walk down the street without being spit on. And yes, their security details should keep the Curmudgeon out of spitting range.

Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, this isn’t over. Not by a long shot.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Curmudgeon - Check Out 600w 200h

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
What we have here President Obama is a failure to communicate
  • Walter_Cronanty

    Don’t forget that both Obama and Clinton starred in an ad aired in Pakistan denouncing the videotape. They spent $70,000 of US taxpayers’ money explaining how religiously tolerant the US is – all in order to appease a mob of unhinged loons who will behead you for drawing a picture of Muhammad.
    Neither Obama nor Clinton has exhibited one ounce of integrity or honor throughout Benghazi episode.

    • jim_m

      And the result of their ad was more likely to provoke increased anti-American violence among people who probably hadn’t even heard of that video. They dd more to promote that video than any islamist..

    • Hard to exibit what one has none of…

  • GarandFan

    You can bet the whores of the MSM will get right on this………crickets………..

  • Paul Hooson

    This still seems like unfair politics to me. 13 deadly U.S. embassy attacks took place during the Bush Administration, and in not one single case were these exploited for political points during the Bush Administration by the Democratic opposition. Senators and Congressmen used to share a consensus effort to fight terrorism as a united front, instead of one side looking to exploit the latest terrorist attack to supposedly promote their own political gain. It’s one thing to attempt to learn from a terrorist incident to improve security. It’s quite another thing to seek political gain from a tragic event. Despite one U.S. embassy attack in Saudi Arabia in 2003, another attack took place the next year in 2004, for example.

    • Alpha_Male

      I could be wrong, and correct me if I am, but I don’t recall Bush or his admin. ever calling those attacks anything but what they were, terrorist attacks.
      It seems to me that Obama, Clinton and the current regime did the exact opposite and called it everything but that. They blamed videos, spontaneous uprisings, etc. all in a bid to not offend. When the truth became apparent and the cover-up started is when it bit them in the ass.

      It seems Obama had an opportunity to rally the American people and lead and yet he chose the policy of placation and blame reassignment, one could argue this is def. a fair area for political criticism in these events.

      • Paul Hooson

        I was left speechless when Obama’s rep on MEET THE PRESS had claimed that it was not a terrorist attack of some sort as well. I didn’t get that one. But, the political fallout surprised me.

        • Jwb10001

          What political fall out, compared to the “outrage” being directed at Christie Obama and Clinton have all but gotten a pass on this. Up to now I’ve seen no political fall out, that’s the whole problem here.

    • The_Weege_99

      To be fair, it didn’t become a political issue until the administration went into CYA mode with the cover-up and the lie about the video. This cover-up was political in nature, since the presidential campaign was in full swing.
      I don’t recall Bush lying about who attacked our embassies while he was president. Then there were the reports that threats had been made prior to the incident and that there had been denied requests for additional security. Plus the information that came out that despite Obama’s claim to have ordered the military and intelligence to do whatever they could to help them, nobody was given an order to go.
      And shall we also talk about how the search for those responsible is going? Seems to be non-existent.

    • Michael Becker

      Paul you’re being dense. I don’t know if it’s intentional, but your whole comment is simply cave dweller stuff.

      The Benghazi attack occurred on September 11, 2012, roughly 60 days before the presidential election. The Obama campaign had been running around for months promoting the “Osama is dead Detroit’s alive” BS and Obama made the point that alQaeda was reduced to a nothing burger because of Barack’s kill list and drone strikes. They were no longer a threat. The War on Terror was officially over. And on and on.

      Admitting that the strike at Benghazi was actually what it turned out to be, a terrorist attack engineered by alQaeda and related cells, would have been an admission that Obama’s strategy was not working. The fact that the Ambassador asked for more security and was turned down – at the same time State was spending a fortune on electric car chargers in Europe – and that the Marines offered to deploy security forces to Benghazi and were rebuffed could have really rung some bells.

      No previous President, not even Clinton, ran away from a terrorist attack, lied to the American people about it for weeks, went to the funeral of fallen heroes and lied face to face to their families, or went to the UN repeated the lie – while apologizing for our insensitivity.

      The issue isn’t the Benghazi attack, although there’s plenty of absolute incompetence to point to, the issue is the administrations lies and those continue to this day.

      • Paul Hooson

        Not exactly my point, Michael. I consider every terrorist attack to be tragic and something that needs to be a learning lesson to improve embassy or other security lesson. Whether this attack was engineered by al Qaeda or by some local warlord seems rather insignificant here compared to why it happened and how can it be prevented in the future.
        al Qaeda has suffered substantial losses under Obama’s watch. Drone attack have taken a great toll. No doubt, in the heat of the election there was some effort not to credit al Qaeda with the terrorism.
        I don’t know if all Americans really understand that many terrorists who support al Qaeda type goals or al Qaeda type violence are not al Qaeda members per se. Just like Communism or left wing radicalism, not everyone who supported leftist violence was part of a wing of the old Soviet Communist Party. There appears a huge effort to call this violence al Qaeda violence, rather than look at how to prevent the embassy violence. Further, there is a great attempt by some to use this event for political gain, rather than focus on what has gone wrong here to make adjustments in the future to prevent future attacks.

        • Michael Becker

          Thanks for clarifying.

          You’re an idiot.

          • Paul Hooson

            Look at the facts. True al Qaeda members probably comprise not more than a few hundred in some countries, yet thousands if not tens of thousands will rally to antiAmerican violence in many countries. These aren’t all true al Qaeda types, but often members of militias or even just independent anti-American types. What has probably failed is the Obama Administration’s targeting of a few high target, high profile figures like Osama Bin Laden, when larger anti-American units need to be hit with heavier weapons than just a drone. Look at the Iraqi town that appears to be falling to pro-al Qaeda elements. Israel hit Hezbollah with cluster bombs and other weapons, causing heavy losses of terrorist manpower in some efforts in Lebanon for example. Cluster bombs and napalm can cause heavy losses to a large enemy force if gathered en masse.

          • Michael Becker

            You’re showing off your complete lack of reading comprehension.

            The entire point of the investigation has little to do with actual attack. The point here is why Barack Obama and every member of his administration lied about it for weeks on end.

            “al Qaeda” is moniker like “kleenex” or “FedEx”. In fact Islamic terrorism is the problem under any name, and cluster bombs are much too nice to use as a remedy. My preference is large scale fuel-air weapons.

            In fact, the only reason “aQ” is important here is – as I noted in the OP – that Obama & his ilk were running around for months hollering about how aQ was out of the game. They weren’t and aren’t. They’re still active, slightly less effective than 15 years ago, but still active and coordinating with other groups.

            The issue is that Obama has been lying to the American people about this episode since day one. He was AWOL on the night of the attack and then compounded his incompetence with lies.

            Those are the ONLY facts that matter.

          • Paul Hooson

            Let’s talk about the events here. Hillary, as Secretary Of State, probably failed by not recalling the embassy staff if it appeared that a rising wave of anti-Americanism endangered the staffers. The staffers did make use of a long escape tunnel, but were captured a crowd and effectively lynched. Every military option involving air rescue from three different American air bases or ships would take too long. And there wasn’t any approval to drop bombs on masses of citizens in a country involved in it’s own political demonstrations. – So was this failure something where Hillary failed to remove the staffers because a long warning period existed or was this a nearly sudden wave of demonstrations and violence, where there was little warning to prevent the terrorist acts. That part involves both blame as well as prevention.

          • Michael Becker

            Paul, you’re a flaming idiot. In fact, military operations could have been launched if Obama had bothered to pay attention. Obama has the ability to order military operations and use of any kind of ordinance necessary in any country in the world, any time he wants to.

            Go crawl in hole, you’re stealing valuable oxygen from the poor. Oh, and if need something for which to be joyous, it’s that I’m not a moderator.

      • Bravisimo…

  • 914

    Barry’s kind of transparency. Sleep through a 3AM call then hop on AF1 won and collect cash and golf a little.

    It’s a feature not a bug. The Dumbocrats are also admitting that ObungledCare is a massively terrible idea. As for the shamestream they are busy reporting on real news like the Dying Pacific Ocean due to Fukushima. Oh, wait? Crickets on that one too.

  • Paul Hooson

    Here’s one effective way to take out a large enemy group of insurgent fighters.