Benghazi Hearings Today Will Determine Fate of the Obama Administration (Not Really)

What will the content-to-grandstanding ratio be?


Maybe the administration meant to tell those guys to "stand down"?
Credit: REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori

Three apparent whistle-blowers will be testifying before the Republican-run House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to tell us what is absolutely clear by now: The deadly attacks on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were a planned terrorist act and not a response to the trailer for The Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

My Twitter feed tells me that these hearings will spell the doom of the Obama administration. I'm going to make the wild prediction that it most certainly will not. It may spell doom for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's chances as president in 2016, but even that will depend on who her opposition would be.

The hearings will air on C-Span 3 beginning at 11:30 a.m. EST. The link to their feed is here. Enjoy! Wait, don't enjoy! Be outraged!

NEXT: Radical Islamic Militants Reportedly Storm Military Jail in Nigeria, Free 100 Prisoners

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. were (a) planned terrorist act and not a response to the trailer

    Exactly why the vast majority will never care.

  2. Doom for Hilary is good enough. A hearing, however, will not get it done. For a Clinton, you need Zombie killing skills.

    1. Double tap

      1. Bubba already proved himself bulletproof. I'm sure Hil-dawg taught him everything he knows, but not everything she knows.

  3. We already have the person (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) who was guilty of making the movie in jail, what else needs to done?

  4. This smells a bit worse than that to me, though I think the administration falling over this is unlikely. More because we're stupid about allowing incompetence, dishonesty, and corruption to exist in our government than for any other reason.

    It's clearly not nothing, regardless of how it plays out.

  5. This has been framed as partisan Republicans versus the Obama Administration just as gun control was the NRA versus the Obama Administration (and common sense). There is no truth to be heard, no lesson to be learned. It's only another political exercise.

    1. Because it is. There were six attacks on embassies during Dubya's first term. Reagan hit the big daddy with 241 US Marines killed at the US embassy in Lebanon.

      1. dude, what the fuck is going on in your head? none of this is about the embassy getting hit you fucking imbecile, it is the ensuing cover-up by the administration for something that could have been prevented and construed as making them look weak on foreign policy during a presidential election year that people are raising issue with, seriously go back under your bridge you fucking troll.

        1. Don't bother arguing with him, he is just a dishonest troll. Either ignore him, or mock him.

        2. No it's about you watching too much FOX News.

          Nobody has to explain what the coverup was. All they have to do is say "Benghazi" and the mouths start foaming. About what? Who cares? This isn't about truth, it's about Republicans missing the days of Whitewater. The days when even reputable journalists spent their days refreshing Drudge.

          Nobody disputed there was an attack, and I'm not sure how the motives behind the attack would speak to the administration's counter-terrorism credibility either way. There's a suspicious lack of a solid accusation here. Or maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention to Brian Kilmeade's semi-lucid rambling.

          1. address the points, Mr. ad hom.

            1. And pretty clear that our sockpuppet thinks there's fire here, too. Interesting.

              1. He does weigh the same as a duck.

            2. I don't know what the points are. Susan Rice got the motive wrong in a speech immediately after the attack? Okay... well her pound of flesh was served up when she was pulled from the running for secretary of state. What else? Maybe I am just dumb, but I really can't figure out what the scandal is supposed to be here. From what I can tell the scandal is that Hillary Clinton is running for president and Republicans don't like that.

              1. Yes, she made the first amendment the whipping boy for the administration's fuckup. Unforgiveable.

        3. dude, what the fuck is going on in your head?

          It's just the result of prolonged oxygen deprivation from having his head up Obama's ass all of the time.

      2. "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

      3. Bush lied about the attacks or something? Was a U.S. ambassador killed in one of these attacks?

        1. Bush's lies got many thousand times more people killed, at least one ambassador among them.

          1. What lies and which ambassador?

            And if you're referring to his WMD argument... that wasn't a lie.

      4. And Reagen blamed that attack on an American citizen and had his probation revoked for it. Right?

      5. Palin's Buttplug| 5.8.13 @ 10:54AM |#
        "Because it is. There were six attacks on embassies during Dubya's first term. Reagan hit the big daddy with 241 US Marines killed at the US embassy in Lebanon."

        OK, what's the redline on spin? I think we have a serious over-rev here, causing major brain damage.
        Except it was already in such a state it's hard telling.

  6. This is the most damning aspect of the whole scenario-

    The integrity of the Pentagon is not in question. The purpose of an After Action is to perform better the next time. Is the public seriously to believe that in ten hours Dempsey and the $600 billion dollar Defense Department could not dispatch one ad hoc rescue team, as our embassy in Tripoli did, or order one fighter jet to scramble?

    Have our military's best and brightest lost the capacity to improvise? Clearly, that merits an assessment. Will General Dempsey ask for a review of his own procedures? Do as I say, or as I do? The chairman of the joint chiefs is the only general who can answer that.


  7. Yes, nothing will happen to the Messiah because the media is full of Obama-worshipping dicklickers like Weigel's Buttplug, but that doesn't matter. The truth is important for it's own sake, and once the clear and unambiguous truth on this is made public, maybe a few Americans will learn a valuable lesson.

    Once this Big Lie is finally exposed for what it is, hopefully next Congress will investigate the Fort Hood Massacre and the ongoing farcical non-trial of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, because that situation is just as much of a lie and a disgrace as Benghazi is.

    1. We should officially change his name to 'Obamas Buttplug', since he always had his head in Obamas ass.

      I was officially convinced after this admin got away with Fast and Furious, that they could get away with anything. They have proved me right.

      1. The faction most responsible for the media's lack of concern for the various alleged scandals of the Obama administration is the one most hysterical about them. Republicans need to have their mommies re-read to them the parable of the boy who cried wolf.

        1. That is right Tony. If only it didn't benefit the Republicans, the media could go back to holding the government accountable again.

          1. Accountable for what, in this case?

        2. Even someone as dumb as you should be able to tell the difference between the legitimate examples of corruption like Fast and Furious and distracting theories from the GOP fringe about birth certificates.

          The lesson you would have us learn from the boy who cried wolf is apparently "wolves don't exist because a boy lied about them one time"

          1. The lesson is it becomes difficult to tell the difference between a real scandal and one made up for cynical partisan advantage. Since Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and Benghazi were all cynical partisan fishing expeditions, I'm really talking about the time when an actual scandal comes up some day.

            1. Oh, actual scandal to you means it makes a conservative look bad. Sorry, I forgot.

            2. Since Fast and Furious were all examples of government failure due to some mixture of corruption and incompetence, and since Democrats are the party of Government as God, I guess you can see it that way.

        3. Regurgitating talking points from a Salon article? Week sauce. F-

          We should read the newspapers Salon, and then go on television the internet and repeat what we read as though it was our own opinion.

  8. Yesterday was so nice around here. Buttplug and Chony were off giving reach arounds to each other and we were having such a nice time discussing that awesome Bureau of Justice Statistics report and Delaware letting the gays get divorced.

    Good times.

  9. So let me see if I have this straight: this is a non-issue because Fox News and Bush.

    Because Fox News "cried wolf" on other issues, this administration gets a free pass on any real scandals henceforth.

    Because Bush did X, this administration gets a free pass on Y henceforth.

    Is that what intellectual integrity looks like? Because that looks freaking easy.

    1. My point isn't that they should get a free pass, but the Republican scandal machine is not making it easy to parse the real from the fake. All they're doing is making it easier for Obama to get away with stuff.

      1. You have to admit, it doesn't take much to render a leftist moron unable to consider the possibility that his messiah might be doing wrong.

        1. All I'm asking is for you to articulate what the wrongdoing was.

          1. Fast and Furious - The administration gave guns to Mexican criminals

            Benghazi - Security was abysmal at the embassy and further security was denied when they asked for it in order to protect them from an attack. Then the administration blamed it on a video.

            Solyndra - cronyism and massive amounts of evaporating public money

            1. But what's wrong with that? Just because Obama is black or something? I don't get it. 🙁

                1. I'm fine with impeaching Bush, too. And Clinton and Old Man Bush.

                  1. AGAINST.



            2. The Bush administration's gunwalking strategy proved to be a failure, and in the fallout from Fast and Furious, several ATF employees were fired. There was no evidence implicating the current attorney general or the president in any wrongdoing.

              Security funding was low for consulates such as the one in Benghazi because of Republican budget cutting mania, and if you're referring to the call for reinforcement during the attack, there simply wasn't enough time to get it there. Terrorists attack and American outpost in Libya, and it's Obama's fault. Why was it always the terrorists' fault under Bush, even when they attacked domestically? They admitted the video thing was wrong, Susan Rice's reputation suffered, and... what? What do you want?

              Solyndra was one failed green energy company out of many that received federal grants. This is perhaps the most obvious partisan/corporate crony propaganda. All advanced tech companies that receive grants have to succeed, otherwise we go back to the status quo? Sounds great if your Exxon.

              What these have in common is the naked partisanship of the outrage. There was no attempt to assess the actual level of wrongdoing; it's all about attempting to gin up another Whitewater. And all have so far failed spectacularly.

              1. you're*

              2. The Bush administration's gunwalking strategy proved to be a failure


                Terrorists attack and American outpost in Libya, and it's Obama's fault.

                Said who, ever?

                Why was it always the terrorists' fault under Bush, even when they attacked domestically?


              3. There are several differences between what the Bush administration did (which was "tracing" not "walking") and Fast and Furious. The biggest difference is the latter was all about getting guns in the hands of Mexican criminals. That's why it was not shut down, unlike Wide Receiver. They wanted a rationalization for gun control, and they would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky meddling gun nuts.

                1. It seriously boggles my mind how anyone can compare the two operations without thinking "why did they not only repeat the operation, which everyone knew was a failure....but without any of the controls from the first one?". How fucking brain dead or morbidly partisan can you be. This is administration is either clearly retarded or astonishingly evil.

          2. Tony| 5.8.13 @ 12:38PM |#

            All I'm asking is for you to articulate what the wrongdoing was.

            What was the CIA doing in Benghazi, Tony, and what was the ambassador doing there with them?

            Not interested?

            also = as is being discussed now in congress = why was no one who testified in the ARB allowed to read the report presented to congress?

      2. All they're doing is making it easier for Obama to get away with stuff.

        That is some magical power they have.

  10. I'm not so sure the remaining BO administration is at all averse to having "whistleblowers" rip into a now-departed former political rival and minimize the responsibility of anyone above her.

    If those whistleblowers were blaming BO or Valerie Jarret or David Atzerod, they'd have suffered a mysterious Hellfire-sized brain hemorrhage before the hearing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.