A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi

[OrneryMod]

Link to the topic on the old forums.

[Pete at Home]

Did Hillary Clinton really say this?

“The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Hey, maybe they were just out for a pleasure cruise at night through eel infested waters.

If anyone wants to dissuade me from Sanders, show me where he plays Americans for Fools like that.

[Wayward Son]

Context, Pete, context.

Hillary was chiding Senator Johnson for harping on her for not quizzing the survivors immediately after the attack to ascertain that the attack wasn't the result of a protest.  She wasn't trying to play Americans for fools.  She was trying to get Johnson back to reality, that "once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries."  Finding out what caused the attack wasn't her first priority, and, if you think about it, wasn't her job at the time.  That's what the FBI and other security agencies are for.

Read the exchange here.

[scifibum]

Even her very next sentence casts the remark in a much different light:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

[Pete at Home]

Thanks for the context.  Seems to me that part of making sure it never happens again, kind of requires us to put people in charge that understand and care why it happened in the first place.  Don't really see the context as redemptive.

[scifibum]

It was a remark made in exasperation, and so the wording should be taken with a large grain of salt.  The point she was trying to make seems to be that obsession with who knew what at a given moment in time isn't productive.

[Pete at Home]

OK. So somewhere there's a link of her actually saying something informative and intelligent about Benghazi, right?

[yossarian22c]

To my knowledge it doesn't exist.  Other than her indignant tone while answering the questions and the inane obviously political nature of the investigation I'm not sure how that answer wasn't lambasted for the political junk it was. 

The republicans are obviously trying to make a scandal out of Benghazi.  The details of security at any particular base should not be designed by the SoS.  If Clinton was actually making the day to day decisions about the security details at each embassy and outpost throughout the world that would be a scandal because she has no business doing anything other than choosing qualified experts to make those decisions.  Now if the person in charge of Embassy/Consulate security most relevant experience was judging horse shows* then would be something to go after her about.

*pointless Bush dig but I just felt like it anyway

[Pete at Home]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Secretary to provide a cogent lucid analysis of what went down in Benghazi.  And hail interrogation of an executive officer after such a farce is politics as the Constitution intended it to operate.  Congressional hearings are politics-driven and replete with hot air and exaggerated fury, but they are supposed to bring info to light, and/or identify stonewallers within the government. 

[AI Wessex]

Did you listen to, watch or read the transcript of her appearance?  Seems like your only takeaway is this one snippet of exasperation taken out of context.

[Pete at Home]

Am looking, but if you are aware of any Clintonic statements on the matter that inform rather than stonewalling, that would help.  Same as I'd hope you'd ask me to fill you in if you wanted to know something about an area where I was better informed.

I'be read some of the transcript.  Are you saying you read it and there is something there or are you doing the thing useless people do when they want to feel useful, " well, where did you last see your keys?"

[scifibum]

I don't know how she can be helpful when the whole investigation is a political smear effort.  The Republicans don't investigate in order to improve embassy security or even to hold someone accountable for mishandling the Benghazi attack, they just investigate in order to try to embarrass their political opponents.

[AI Wessex]

I watched about 3 hours of the all-day hearing. She was respectful and direct in her answers to all legitimate questions. She even answered nearly all of the obviously baiting and politically accusatory questions straightforwardly. Since you clearly took that 5 second seemingly objectionable clip out of a whole day's worth of answers and even mangled the context to make the claim that it was a synecdoche proving she stonewalled the whole day, why don't you atone by reading the rest of the transcript and report back to us whether or not that's all she really did.

[Pete at Home]

Since you clearly took that 5 second seemingly objectionable clip out of a whole day's worth of answers [goes on to make angry and defensive motive inferences]

No.  As I have already explained twice, I have not followed the debates and just saw that quote online. Rather than spending three hours listening to her, I thought Ornery might have someone who likes Hillary who could provide a counterexample, i.e. an example of her speaking about Benghazi in a way that doesn't sound like BS or a stonewall.

I wouldn't take polite absence of volunteered quotes as proof that she's never said anything truthful and intelligent on the matter.

to make the claim that it was a synecdoche proving she stonewalled the whole day,

Please quote where I "claim"ed that "she stonewalle the whole day."  I asked if she'd ever provided a lucid useful description of what happened at Benghazi, and I didn't limit the scope to any particular day.

Just because you never pose honest (i.e. non-rhetorical) questions, doesn't mean you should assume that others share that defect.  Some of us come here to become better informed, and to get information from folks with other info sources, specialties, and political points of view.

why don't you atone by reading the rest of the transcript

Wow.

I ask if anyone knows of a better more positively representative quote from Clinton on Benghazi.

Wessex brags that he watched three hours of the Benghazi Clinton debrief.

I ask if, in those three hours, he saw anything to indicate that Clinton was willing to share ANYTHING remotely honest and intelligent on Benghazi, in other words, is it worth reading the transcript.

Al declines to answer the question directly, but indicates that I should read the whole transcript to punish myself for asking impertinent questions.

I can only infer that Al doesn't believe the transcript will be informative.

[Pete at Home]

I don't know how she can be helpful when the whole investigation is a political smear effort.  The Republicans don't investigate in order to improve embassy security or even to hold someone accountable for mishandling the Benghazi attack, they just investigate in order to try to embarrass their political opponents.

Is there any reason that she's bound to not talk to the American people about that incident, outside the scope of the investigation?

[AI Wessex]

Why should she?   It's old news and there's nothing new to say about it.

[Pete at Home]

Obviously I was asking if she had done so when it wasn't "old news." duh.

[AI Wessex]

Pete, as ever there's much to find wanting in your understanding about this issue.  I don't take you seriously about it because the pejorative clip you cited came from an obviously right wing source, meaning you repeated it here breathlessly without even taking the time to find out more about the context.  Now you bite back at me for saying I am better informed than you as bragging. 

[Pete at Home]

Pete, as ever there's much to find wanting in your understanding about this issue.

I established that three times already. That's why I asked the question.

I don't take you seriously about it because the pejorative clip you cited came from an obviously right wing source

My source was facebook.  The quote caught my attention, so I came here to see if any pro-hillary folks could show that she did better than this at any time.

You're the one that reads right wing sources.  I very rarely go that way, and when I do, it's because I can't find hits for a word pattern on any other source.  I quote Fox about as often as I quote the world socialist dot org website.

[Pete at Home]

.  Now you bite back at me for saying I am better informed than you as bragging.

No.  I bite back for your bragging about your extensive knowledge but refusing to actually share anything.  Well sorry I decline to give you the verbal beating that you so obviously are having withdrawals for.  Other than giggling at your concession that reading Hillary Clinton should be construed more of an atonement and punishment than an actual source of information.  'nuff said.

[AI Wessex]

You don't understand.   You make unsupported statements that you want others to rebut or refute. If Facebook is your source for that remark taken out of context, perhaps you should look to Facebook for someone to point that out to you if you don't like hearing it from me. There is overwhelming evidence out there showing her speaking informatively and honestly about the events in Benghazi!  If all you choose listen to is that snippet and can't find anything,  then I don't think I can help you. Why do always come itching for a fight?

[Pete at Home]

Al find someone else to fight with.  What I asked for was a quote.  Failing that, I simply asked you if there was ANYTHING in the three hours you saw worth reading.  You declined to reply.  So I'm done with you.  I have no use for your motive reading, and no patience left for useless people.  If you have nothing to say, stop talking.

You make unsupported statements that you want others to rebut or refute.

Please don't be a jackass.  I provided a quote that I'd seen on facebook (which you call a far right source ) and asked if anyone had a quote where Clinton said something more lucid.  That's not an "unsupported statement."  And I'm not asking for a refutation or rebuttal.  In fact, if you have nothing to say, just rebutt out.

[AI Wessex]

Pete,  try this.   It wasn't very hard to find, and there are many other articles with similar content, just not perhaps where you chose to look and then stopped.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

I object to your initial laziness and that you pretend to want to have an open and honest exchange when I think you're really just amusing yourself by trying to bait others here into an argument.

[Pete at Home]

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, you can't just google for "something halfway intelligent that Hillary said about Benghazi."

Your article does provide a glimpse of her behaving reasonably under difficult and confusing circumstances.

Note that unlike Rubio, I never accused her of lying about Benghazi.  I remember very well who in the US government focused on the video, and it wasn't clinton.

Please pretend I returned your gratuitous insults.  I'm just not in the mood.

[AI Wessex]

You need only google "clinton benghazi comments" to see a rich assortments of opinions and factual recountings of events from various points of view.  Here's another one that tries to put things in perspective.  What's clear is that the minimal quote on almost any issue of importance taken without the necessary context is likely nothing more than partisan hype meant to catch you leaning and help you lean further.  Whatever you might say about her, Clinton was not a robot, not a purely partisan actor, not uncaring or unwilling to reflect on her failings or those of the Department she headed.  What she also was was not perfect.  People who look for defects to exclude candidates, especially those with a long enough history, will be more than gratified and less than satisfied.  IMO, she's the best of an imperfect lot on either side of the aisle, not deserving of the honor to be President but willing and capable, which is about all you can ask.  Someone (Twain?, Lardner?) said that anyone who wants the office should be disqualified, but that would eliminate virtually anyone who vies for the position.  We have no tradition of unwilling Presidents, sometimes reluctant or unexpecting, but they wouldn't be in the vicinity if it wasn't in their sights.

[Pete at Home]

What I'm looking for isn't weakness.   Just some evidence to home that she sometimes uses some of that incredible wealth and experience to use on America's behalf, rather than on behalf of herself, her husband, or her party.  Maybe "strong enough to beat the Republicans" is enough creds for you.  But after she's brought Madaleine "Let's start a war just because we need something to do with this army" Albright on her team, I need more than that.

[AI Wessex]

If her lifetime of advocacy for women's rights and assistance, her strong interest in health care access to people who lack it, her serving as Senator and then Secretary of State don't even suggest the possibility of her desire for public service, nothing I say will motivate you to look at her more generously than you do now.

[Pete at Home]

I think we've already established that nothing YOU say will convince anyone of anything, at least while you're in defeatist gimp mode.  Search Al cross referenced with the phrase "nothing I say."   Sounds like one of those phrases one picks up from mommy and daddy and haunts all one's interactions.

What I'm looking is for things that Hillary Clinton has said, that make her sound presidential.

[AI Wessex]

Like I said nothing I say can convince you .  That's partly because I say things you apparently don't want to hear.

[Wayward Son]

If you want to hear Hillary sound presidential, have you tried one of the Democratic debates? (Not that I have... )

[Pete at Home]

If you want to hear Hillary sound presidential, have you tried one of the Democratic debates? (Not that I have... )

Yes. Watched the debate with her, Bernie, and some other guy that didn't get much time, but sounded good during the few moments he got to speak.  Hillary sounded like she'd been coached a lot to sound like her husband, and I felt quite irritated with her when she went after Bernie for failing to properly grovel to Obama.  I started a thread on that.

Note that Al has pulled this "nothing I can say can convince you" crap before, e.g. with the Missouri protests, and lo and behold, someone else actually came forward and made an argument that wasn't an insult to my intelligence or a demand that I grovel to authority, and I actually WAS persuaded.  It pissed Al and Pyr off that I'd been persuaded, and they griped to no end that I was a bad guy for not being previously persuaded prior to actual facts being made available.

I grant that Hillary sounds like past presidents have sounded (i.e. Reagan, Clinton and Bush) but to me that's not necessarily a good thing.  Reagan ran on a platform dedicated to balancing the budget, and then dropped taxes on the rich while escalating an arms race.  Bush I started an unnecessary war to make the world safe for folks that prostelytize militant islamist Wahabbism, sparking war and genocide from England to America to the Phillipines.  Clinton dropped cluster bombs on Serbian kids and bombed the Chinese Embassy to give Kosovo over to the KLA, a terrorist organization involved in human trafficking.  Bush II's the most honest of the bunch, since he actually ran on a platform that precisely outlined the stupidity that he was going to commit while in office, most notably to take us back into Iraq, take out Hussein, and try to create a "free Iraq" (a contradiction in terms since Iraq is a colonialist construct, a collection of groups that hate each other, could only be united by violence, and if free, would be free of each other.)  In short, Bush Jr was the most dangerous thing of all, an honest president who actually believed all the ridiculous lies that the previous three presidents had told to bamboozle the American public.

[Pyrtolin]

It pissed Al and Pyr off that I'd been persuaded, and they griped to no end that I was a bad guy for not being previously persuaded prior to actual facts being made available.

Please refrain from making stuff up about me.

[Pete at Home]

It pissed Al and Pyr off that I'd been persuaded, and they griped to no end that I was a bad guy for not being previously persuaded prior to actual facts being made available.

Please refrain from making stuff up about me.

Here's the thread I was referencing.  I didn't make up anything.  It's possible that I misunderstood you.  A lot of people do, and I'm not altogether persuaded that you always understand yourself, since what you say what you meant, several pages downward, tends to look rather gaslit.

[AI Wessex]

So, I am so disgusted with your attitude that I'm going to waste 15 minutes of time I could be out shoveling snow to remind you just how dishonest you have been on this thread.

You can't go down gracefully without trying to pull down others who rightfully challenged you, can you?  Let's take a walk down memory lane in this thread.  First you basically retweeted an incomplete snippet from a 9-hour hearing where she was repeatedly attacked by Congressmen who had only partisan interests to diminish her standing in the eyes of the public.  You commented on that and said:

Hey, maybe they were just out for a pleasure cruise at night through eel infested waters.

If anyone wants to dissuade me from Sanders, show me where he plays Americans for Fools like that.

That shows that you completely bought into the selective quote and misrepresentation of her actual remarks without doing any minimal research of your own to find out what really happened. I have to assume you didn't want to do that, only to provoke people here into defending her so you could then move on to your next pointless attack and "wonder" if she ever said anything "informative and intelligent" about what happened at Benghazi:

OK. So somewhere there's a link of her actually saying something informative and intelligent about Benghazi, right?

In three years she never said anything substantive?  Never?  How much research did you do to come to that brilliantly skeptical view?  Frankly, you know she did but since you're only reviving this thread to provoke an argument where you can piss on anyone who challenges you, you leave that out of your remarks.  Do you argue cases in court this way?  Do you wear bright plaid suits and an oversized bow tie?

When you get a little pushback, you double down with snarky innocence:

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Secretary to provide a cogent lucid analysis of what went down in Benghazi.

Which anyone with any hope or pretense of being objective would know she did often when she spoke on this issue.  No reasonable person would expect her to let her hair down and chat just between us girls about it, because after all, she was the Secretary of State.  That's also not to say that she copped to every far-fetched conspiracy theory regularly thrown in her face.  It really pisses them off that she doesn't cave like the wannabe man they think she really is.  Heh, she can't keep her man and she can't compete in a man's world, either.  If they attack her hard enough and long enough, with your help here, they can prove that she's just a fish with a bicycle.

OK, what's next?  Right, she's stonewalling and you can't find anything on the internet that would inform you otherwise:

Am looking, but if you are aware of any Clintonic statements on the matter that inform rather than stonewalling, that would help.  Same as I'd hope you'd ask me to fill you in if you wanted to know something about an area where I was better informed.

Oh, you babe in the woods who don't no how to push them buttons for yourself.  Am I just being a bitch for not helping you out?

Please quote where I "claim"ed that "she stonewalle the whole day."  I asked if she'd ever provided a lucid useful description of what happened at Benghazi, and I didn't limit the scope to any particular day.

Just because you never pose honest (i.e. non-rhetorical) questions, doesn't mean you should assume that others share that defect.  Some of us come here to become better informed, and to get information from folks with other info sources, specialties, and political points of view.

Yes, I guess I am.  You came to us for information that you have to avert your eyes not to see for yourself.  How nice.

Then, when I remind you that we're just playing whack-a-mole, you flip from talking about the hearing held 5 months ago and need something more fresh:

Obviously I was asking if she had done so when it wasn't "old news." duh.

Duh, indeed.  The only reason for her to talk about it is because Republicans smear her every time the word Benghazi! is mentioned.  BTW, have you noticed that none of the GOP candidates have been talking about Benghazi! in the debates or on the campaign trail?  Haven't heard from Bone Crusher Trey Gowdy lately, either.  What's up with that?  Maybe you're the last person left who's still looking for her to offer something fresh about it.

Finally, after I have repeatedly pointed you in the right direction and even offered a sop by giving you an article that reviews many, many cogent things she said and the timeline of the events themselves, you ungraciously offer that I'm the one who has been bragging by pointing out that I watched part of the hearing in question, stonewalling by not coughing up bite-sized pre-chewed quotes for you, and therefore have nothing useful to say:

Al find someone else to fight with.  What I asked for was a quote.  Failing that, I simply asked you if there was ANYTHING in the three hours you saw worth reading.  You declined to reply.  So I'm done with you.  I have no use for your motive reading, and no patience left for useless people.  If you have nothing to say, stop talking.

Then, apparently still unsatisfied you morph the conversation into an attack on her personal integrity out of the blue:

What I'm looking for isn't weakness.   Just some evidence to home that she sometimes uses some of that incredible wealth and experience to use on America's behalf, rather than on behalf of herself, her husband, or her party.  Maybe "strong enough to beat the Republicans" is enough creds for you.  But after she's brought Madaleine "Let's start a war just because we need something to do with this army" Albright on her team, I need more than that.

When I point out that her history contains lots of material to suggest you're wrong, you manfully try one more time to deflect by disparaging me yet again:

I think we've already established that nothing YOU say will convince anyone of anything, at least while you're in defeatist gimp mode.  Search Al cross referenced with the phrase "nothing I say."   Sounds like one of those phrases one picks up from mommy and daddy and haunts all one's interactions.

Weak, very, very weak.

But then you switched gears one more time and dragged Pyrtolin into your diss-fest. Having been rebuffed by him, you try to dig your way out of the mile deep hole you've dug yourself with a spoon with the most pathetic apology I've ever seen here on Ornery:

I didn't make up anything.  It's possible that I misunderstood you.  A lot of people do, and I'm not altogether persuaded that you always understand yourself, since what you say what you meant, several pages downward, tends to look rather gaslit.

Right, you misunderstood Pyrtolin.  EVERYBODY misunderstands Pyrtolin.  PYRTOLIN even doesn't understand what Pyrtolin says. 

Having pointed out your repeated failed attempts to manipulate this discussion (ignoring at least one other thread nearby where you are doing the same thing), I will breathlessly await your next attack on MY openness and honesty.

Ai: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[Pete at Home]

[setting aside Al's disgraceful personal attacks which make up most of his posts to me as usual)
Duh, indeed.  The only reason for her to talk about it is because Republicans smear her every time the word Benghazi! is mentioned.

See, I can't make stuff like that up.  Al just said that the ONLY reason Clinton should ever talked about Benghazi is because of Republican smears.

I disagree.  I think Clinton, as secretary of state, owed the American people an honest accounting of what happened there.  I asked if anyone could link me to somewhere she spoke about it lucidly, honestly, or intelligently.  In response, Al's made a fury of personal attacks on me.

    Am looking, but if you are aware of any Clintonic statements on the matter that inform rather than stonewalling, that would help.  Same as I'd hope you'd ask me to fill you in if you wanted to know something about an area where I was better informed.


Oh, you babe in the woods who don't no how to push them buttons for yourself.  Am I just being a bitch for not helping you out?

No, Al.  Since you ask, that is definitely not what makes you a bitch.  That would be leaping to bitchy conclusions like this:

    OK. So somewhere there's a link of her actually saying something informative and intelligent about Benghazi, right?


In three years she never said anything substantive?  Never?

I have not read everything she's said in the last three years, Al.  I doubt that you have either.  There aren't any quick buttons that I know of that sum up everything she's said on the subject. 

This just goes to show that folks that spend all their time making rhetorical questions, end up forgetting that anyone could ever ask an honest question.  It's like when your mom said that if you keep making that face it will stick that way.  Al, your brain is stuck on this dishonest inquiry mode.  If you cannot consider the possibility that I'm interested in hearing positive sides of Hilary in action, then for hell's sake just shut up and let me ask others the question.

It's a freebie, guys.  Does ANYONE here like Hillary and think she's acquitted herself on Benghazi with her own words?  Some of you have accounts and options that I don't have.

[NobleHunter]

It's a freebie, guys.  Does ANYONE here like Hillary and think she's acquitted herself on Benghazi with her own words?  Some of you have accounts and options that I don't have.

That pre-supposes she needs to acquit herself. This isn't the email thing where she's demonstrably done something questionable.

[Pete at Home]

It's a freebie, guys.  Does ANYONE here like Hillary and think she's acquitted herself on Benghazi with her own words?  Some of you have accounts and options that I don't have.

That pre-supposes she needs to acquit herself. This isn't the email thing where she's demonstrably done something questionable.

While you are AFAIK right on the facts, I think you are mistaken with regard to the usage of the phrase "acquitted herself."

ac·quit  (ə-kwĭt′)
tr.v. ac·quit·ted, ac·quit·ting, ac·quits
1. Law To find not guilty of a criminal offense.
2. To conduct (oneself) in a specified manner: acquitted herself well during the interview.
3. Archaic To release or discharge from an obligation, such as a debt.
4. Obsolete To repay.

I meant definition #2.  #3 would also apply.

As far as I know, in the Modern English usage, when the verb to acquit is used directly (the jury acquit him) it refers to definition #1.  When the verb is used reflexively (acquitted herself) it refers to #2.

I could have said, "Does anyone here think she's risen to the challenge and properly spoke and acted as a leader with regard to Benghazi?"  But "acquitted herself" was shorter, and I thought it was clear.

[AI Wessex]

I do, taking into account that it was a chaotic mess at first and a lot of disentangling took place before the causes and course of events were sorted out, not to mention the hyper-partisan and relentless attacks against her and Obama by Republicans in Congress, FOX and almost every conservative talking head.  Plus as the Secretary of State she quite willingly agreed to implement all of the findings of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board:

Following the September 11, 2012 attack on U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) on December 19, 2012, issued 29 recommendations (24 of which were unclassified) to the Department of State. The Department accepted each of the ARB’s recommendations and is committed to implementing them. This will require fundamentally reforming the organization in critical ways – work which is already well underway. While risk can never be completely eliminated from our diplomatic and development duties, we must always work to minimize it.

[NobleHunter]

I hate English. Stupid bloody pseudo-language thing.

Reports are that she made a good show of it at her hearing. T'other problem is that the GOP obsession with Benghazi is not a challenge that lends itself well to demonstrating leadership qualities. It's similar to the birther nonsense in that way.

[Seriati]

AI, while Pete may find your responses here distasteful because of the complete avoidance of providing him with a direct answer, I find them distasteful because of your blind partisan insistence on recharacterizing your favorite side's failures as partisan attacks from the other side.

I mean honestly, at this point, we know for a fact from Hillary's own words, that the administration was lying about the video sparking a spontaneous protest rationale (and its been completely ignored and forgotten that they went so far as to arrest the person who made the video, notwithstanding the first amendment), it's become clear that we could have sent help in a meaningful time frame - but that the order was never given, and it's also pretty convincing that the administration, your hero included, have deliberately mislead and obfuscated the facts for their own benefit.  It doesn't make a difference if they are doing that because they think the Republicans are out to get them (which is part paranoia and part reality) or simply to cover up their own misdeeds, because it's completely in their control to have been up front, honest and  clear about it from the start and they have chosen at every step not to be.

And you're correct it hasn't been coming up in the Republican debates, but there's no real reason it should be.  Let's wait till the actual debates, assuming Hillary is the candidate and hasn't been indicted, and see if it comes up there at all.

[Pete at Home]

I hate English. Stupid bloody pseudo-language thing.

Reports are that she made a good show of it at her hearing. T'other problem is that the GOP obsession with Benghazi is not a challenge that lends itself well to demonstrating leadership qualities. It's similar to the birther nonsense in that way.

Agreed that they are similar in *that* way. Where they are dissimilar, is that the birther stuff doesn't touch on any part of Obama's job as president wherein he is accountable to the people.

I'd be happy with an indirect adress, e.g. Clinton saying, let's do this and that militarily because we learned x y and z in Benghazi.

Also, if anyone knows a way I could google for that without having to wade through a lot of invidious right wing trash, I would be even more grateful for improving my net searching skills.

[Pete at Home]

I do, taking into account that it was a chaotic mess at first and a lot of disentangling took place before the causes and course of events were sorted out, not to mention the hyper-partisan and relentless attacks against her and Obama by Republicans in Congress, FOX and almost every conservative talking head.  Plus as the Secretary of State she quite willingly agreed to implement all of the findings of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board:

Following the September 11, 2012 attack on U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) on December 19, 2012, issued 29 recommendations (24 of which were unclassified) to the Department of State. The Department accepted each of the ARB’s recommendations and is committed to implementing them. This will require fundamentally reforming the organization in critical ways – work which is already well underway. While risk can never be completely eliminated from our diplomatic and development duties, we must always work to minimize it.

Thank you!

That actually helps.  I'll read up on those recommendations, and search to see if Hillary had any responses to any of them.

Fox News is what was on TV in most of the bars I frequented 2010-2012, and so watching any news program or reading Fox-like attacks on Obama and Hillary make me feel like I'm on a bender.  So while Benghazi has fascinated, I've been literally unable to stomach reading any of the search results that come up on Benghazi.  I tried reading the left wing stuff, but that's nothing but predigested responses to the right wing stuff, and I'm back on a bender.  So that's what I mean by I'd like to hear what Hillary said about it, without wading through all the right wing stuff.  The recommendations so far seem good reading and easy on the stomach.

[AI Wessex]

I mean honestly

You say that as if it what follows goes without question.  True that the Administration mischaracterized events based on assumptions and incomplete information.  They should have held off despite the demands for instant analysis.  Here's one that may tell where your sense of honesty ends and partisanship might begin.  Is an "act of terror" different than an act labeled as "terrorism"?  As NobleHunter offers, one can sympathize with the statement "I hate English. Stupid bloody pseudo-language thing."  Songs about war or tragedy often carry a lot more weight than explanations.

So while Benghazi has fascinated, I've been literally unable to stomach reading any of the search results that come up on Benghazi.

As are we all, but there are some reasonable sites that have summarized, analyzed and opined that are stamped in the partisan mind as either left-wing or right-wing.  They work best when they don't quote each other and focus just on actual information.  That doesn't always work, either, as some who wear ties and jackets to work every day rather than ratty jeans have far more of an axe to grind.  I gravitate to sites that I think know *censored* more than just say *censored*.  Or ones that censor me for saying what I think.

[Pete at Home]

As are we all, but there are some reasonable sites that have summarized, analyzed and opined that are stamped in the partisan mind as either left-wing or right-wing.

That's what i assumed when i started asking here for links.  It's thesort of thing we used to share qaround here before LR, Redskull and Funean left.  I still try to share good, accessible. Sources when i find them.

I concede that asking is 10% laziness but it's 90% trigger avoidance.

[Wayward Son]

...it's become clear that we could have sent help in a meaningful time frame - but that the order was never given...

Whoa!  Really?  Seriati, you've got to fill me in with the details.  This is the first I've ever heard of this.

Every other time someone's said it, it has turned out to be a bold-faced lie, usually told by some partisan hack in the media to fool the hicks.  But I must have missed one.

So please let me know who the help was, where they were stationed, and how long it would have taken them to get there.  It's absolutely amazing this was kept quiet for so long.  Does the Benghazi committee know about this?

[NobleHunter]

Does the Benghazi committee know about this?

Which one?

[scifibum]

That was more or less my reaction, WS, but I was too lazy to ask.

[Pete at Home]

ok, dicing with my sobriety in absence of links,, i google order given benghazi.

dodging obvious right wing sources, i find this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-chief-in-benghazi-challenges-film-version-of-2012-attack/2016/01/15/9cf2defc-baf7-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

,
It is the most fateful moment in a movie that purports to present a searingly accurate account of the 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya: a scene in which the highest-ranking CIA operative at a secret agency compound orders his security team to “stand down” rather than rush off to rescue U.S. diplomats under siege less than a mile away.

According to the officer in charge of the CIA’s Benghazi base that night, the scene in the movie is entirely untrue.

“There never was a stand-down order,” said the base chief known as Bob, speaking publicly for the first time. “At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart.”

[Fact-checking the Benghazi attacks]

Nor, he said, did he say anything that could be “interpreted as equivalent” to an order to stand down.

In a lengthy interview with reporters from The Washington Post, Bob provided new details about the attacks and his interactions with J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who perished in them.

The account from the CIA base chief adds a critical and previously missing voice to the public record on Benghazi, an attack that even three years later remains so politically charged that Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), a Republican presidential candidate, made it the center of his closing remarks during this week’s GOP debate.

The question of whether someone issued a “stand down” has loomed over Benghazi since the immediate aftermath of the attacks. The initial speculation centered mainly on whether an official in Washington, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had impeded rescue attempts — an allegation rejected by a series of congressional inquiries. A 2014 House Intelligence Committee report found “no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support

[Seriati]

...it's become clear that we could have sent help in a meaningful time frame - but that the order was never given...

Whoa!  Really?  Seriati, you've got to fill me in with the details.  This is the first I've ever heard of this.

Every other time someone's said it, it has turned out to be a bold-faced lie, usually told by some partisan hack in the media to fool the hicks.  But I must have missed one.

Well there is the redacted email released that shows the Pentagon offering unspecified forces - did I miss where this turned out to be a bold-faced lie by a partisan hack?

There's several different statements of various insiders relating to forces in the region that were action ready and could have been sent to arrive with various arrival times.  Not sure how any of that would be a bold-faced lie, unless your asserting there are no American forces (including air power) anywhere in Europe, the Mediterrean, the Middle East or Northern Africa that would be kept ready to react on a short time line?

There's absolutely no way to have known real time that any force mobilization would not have arrived in time to make some sort of difference, which means lack of beginning to mobilize forces that would take even several days to arrive is not justifiable. 

[AI Wessex]

Any chance you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight after the dust has cleared and copious amounts of confidence that this one redacted email with an "offering [of] unspecified forces" trumps all other information to the contrary?  What would you have done if you were the SoS getting myriad conflicting reports from the CIA, FBI, other intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and purported witnesses?  Be specific and be exact so we can measure if what you say carries the authority of a clear and all-knowing intellect.