# With trepidation, Benghazi **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535 "2014-05-02T20:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/741 "2014-05-30T15:12:21Z")
**Doorhinge,** other than “where was Obama and what was he doing?” what other questions demand the existence of the Select Committee on All Things Benghazi? And other than “because **doorhinge** is personally curious,” what other reasons are there for deeming “where was Obama and what was he doing” to be an important question worthy of Congressional resources? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/742 "2014-05-30T15:13:01Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > If Obama wasn’t involved, how does Executive Privilege apply? Quite aside from the obvious fact that Obama was involved (e.g., the meeting with the Secretary of Defense while the CIA rescue team was searching for Stevens), executive privilege applies to any senior official in the executive branch, not just the president. For example, the Bush Administration claimed executive privilege on communications between the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget, while during the Nixon Administration the Secretary of State claimed executive privilege. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/743 "2014-05-30T16:14:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > They could simply read the reports of all the \*previous \*committee investigations. 😉 Especially any mention of the (over?) abundance of blacked out sections. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/744 "2014-05-30T16:18:16Z")
[Politico](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html) has some reporting on the contents of the Benghazi chapter in ol’ Hillary’s ol’ new book: > [@](#): > > While saying that as a former senator she respects the “oversight role that Congress is meant to play,” Clinton later adds, “Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.” > > Clinton defends the intelligence at the time preceding the attack on the American compound in Benghazi. An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes. > > That point is among those that has been debated during hearings into the attacks. > > “There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.” > > … > > “Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time,” Clinton writes. “That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.” Of course, none of this detracts from the fact that the Select Committee is still going to be seeking answers to all things Benghazi. The investigation will proceed. Readable documents will be provided and hopefully no one will go to prison. And at the end of it all, we can all join together in a rousing rendition of “HAHAHAHAHAHA.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/745 "2014-05-30T16:29:26Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Quite aside from the obvious fact that Obama was involved (e.g., the meeting with the Secretary of Defense while the CIA rescue team was searching for Stevens), executive privilege applies to any senior official in the executive branch, not just the president. For example, the Bush Administration claimed executive privilege on communications between the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget, while during the Nixon Administration the Secretary of State claimed executive privilege. Are you saying that Obama was simply informed by the Sec of Def that something had happened. That’s not the same as Obama actually directing the response to the attack or the cover up or the cover up of the cover up. Are you saying that Bush was not involved in any way, shape, or form in some specific communications between the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget where EP was claimed? Was Nixon’s Sec of State acting on Nixon’s behalf, or at his direction, or simply covering his own ass for an action that Nixon wasn’t involved with? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/746 "2014-05-30T16:40:17Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > [Politico](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html) has some reporting on the contents of the Benghazi chapter in ol’ Hillary’s ol’ new book: > > Of course, none of this detracts from the fact that the Select Committee is still going to be seeking answers to all things Benghazi. The investigation will proceed. Readable documents will be provided and hopefully no one will go to prison. And at the end of it all, we can all join together in a rousing rendition of “HAHAHAHAHAHA.” _Clinton later adds, “Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions._ What? There are unanswered questions? And ol’ Hillary is aware of that fact? Little wonder that the former senator says she respects the “oversight role that Congress is meant to play”. Even ol’ Hillary understands that the Select Committee has a job to do and that they are going to do it. That rousing rendition thing is OK with me but I’m not available for handholding while we sing “Lydia, The Tattooed Lady”. just sayin’ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/747 "2014-05-30T16:44:20Z")
Scroll back and reread the part about “unlistened-to answers”. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/748 "2014-05-30T16:47:11Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > **Doorhinge,** other than “where was Obama and what was he doing?” what other questions demand the existence of the Select Committee on All Things Benghazi? > > And other than “because **doorhinge** is personally curious,” what other reasons are there for deeming “where was Obama and what was he doing” to be an important question worthy of Congressional resources? A) I believe that was covered in the U.S. House resolution and the debate preceding the passage of the resolution. B) I’m curious. It’s a personal thing. That’s all I’ve got. AFAIK, there are no Congressional resources, time or money, being spent to satisfy my curiosity. (Unlike the numerous attempts to prevent my asking questions.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/749 "2014-05-30T16:54:57Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I’m curious. It’s a personal thing. That’s all I’ve got. AFAIK, there are no Congressional resources, time or money, being spent to satisfy my curiosity. If that’s one of the “unanswered questions” your guys have dreamed up, then yes, yes those resources are indeed being spent (and not being spent on Creating Jobs). And if that’s the only “unanswered question” you can come up with, other than “What was the sensitive information that the State Department so mistrusted Issa with, based on experience with his habitual partisan leaking?” then what are you left with? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/750 "2014-05-30T16:55:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Scroll back and reread the part about “unlistened-to answers”. I read the part where Clinton writes, _'Clinton writes. “That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people_." ’ If that were true, there wouldn’t have been a need for an investigation. The lack of transparency created the need for more investigations and finally, the bipartisan creation of a Select Committee. Hillary is quite chatty in the few un-questionable excerpts from her book that have been released to her admirers. I hope she’s just as chatty and forth coming if she appears before the Select Committee. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/751 "2014-05-30T17:00:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If that’s one of the “unanswered questions” your guys have dreamed up, then yes, yes those resources are indeed being spent (and not being spent on Creating Jobs). And if that’s the only “unanswered question” you can come up with, other than “What was the sensitive information that the State Department so mistrusted Issa with, based on experience with his habitual partisan leaking?” then what are you left with? I, me, moi, have unanswered questions that are separate from those of the Select Committee. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? (Is American-English your 2nd language?) Give me a hint, I’ll trying to help you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/752 "2014-05-30T17:03:35Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I, me, moi, have unanswered questions that are separate from those of the Select Committee. They are? What are theirs, then? And are they \*really \*unanswered as well as significant? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/753 "2014-05-30T17:05:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > If that were true, there wouldn’t have been a need for an investigation. As a wise man once said, HAHAHAHAHAHA. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/754 "2014-05-30T17:07:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you saying that Obama was simply informed by the Sec of Def that something had happened. That’s not the same as Obama actually directing the response to the attack or the cover up or the cover up of the cover up. > > Are you saying that Bush was not involved in any way, shape, or form in some specific communications between the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget where EP was claimed? > > Was Nixon’s Sec of State acting on Nixon’s behalf, or at his direction, or simply covering his own ass for an action that Nixon wasn’t involved with? The already-available evidence says that Obama was informed and told the SecDef to take whatever measures were necessary and continue to keep him informed. Only somebody who has watched too many movies would expect the president to be actually directing the military response, because people below him in the chain of command have much better grasp of what resources are actually available where and what their capabilities are. Even Eisenhower, who presumably had a pretty fair understanding of military assets and tactics, let his subordinates direct the actual operations after he set the goals and overall strategy. No, I’m not saying that Bush or Nixon had no role in the communications. I’m saying that the presence or absence of any such role has no bearing on whether the communications are covered by executive privilege. The _Espy_ case in the federal Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 1997 actually narrowed the scope of executive privilege when they said it covers communications made or received by presidential advisers in the course of preparing advice for the president, even if the president never sees those communications. That covers anything his advisers sent or received, wrote or read, while preparing to advise Obama as to how the United States should act and react during the attack and in its aftermath (which includes Susan Rice’s statements, the White House statements, the various investigations, troop deployments, sending the FBI to Benghazi, the indictments of Ahmed Abu Khattala, and so forth). ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/755 "2014-05-30T17:14:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As a wise man once said, HAHAHAHAHAHA. We agree. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/756 "2014-05-30T17:21:51Z")
> [@](#): > > “There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.” > > … > > “Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time,” Clinton writes. “That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.” I repeat this quote as the most succinct and on-point explanation of what happened in the early days of Benghazi, and which in no way has _ever_ been refuted by those who would want to turn this into an Obama-destroying scandal. I haven’t posted to this thread in a while, but when I did, I asked various people here to respond to evidence at the time of the influence of the video in the attacks, and got exactly _zero_ thoughtful responses. Oh, I got claims like implying that the administration called up the New York Times and directed them to just make stuff up. But anything supported by even a single fact? Nope. The fact is, Clinton’s statements quoted above will never be addressed directly, because any attempt to prove them wrong will come up empty-handed, and will show once and for all the whole pointlessness of the investigations into the affair as it regards wrongdoing by the Obama administration. Clinton was right when she testified that the important facts to be discovered are why the attack could happen in the way it did and what we should do to prevent them in the future. But of course there is no politcal gain to be had in such an investigation. And so the Darrell Issas and the Sean Hannitys and certain Straight-Dopers of the world will ignore this, and search forever in vain in for something, anything, they can use against the president. They are truly pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/757 "2014-05-30T17:22:37Z")
I don’t know about you guys, but I have _so_ many unanswered questions about how this select committee on Benghazi was formed. I can only assume that Kaiser **door** “I love big government so much that I want to take out out behind the middle school and get it pregnant” **hinge** will support my calls to spend more taxpayer dollars on a super-select committee to investigate the formation of this select committee. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/758 "2014-05-30T17:28:56Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > …No, I’m not saying that Bush or Nixon had no role in the communications. I’m saying that the presence or absence of any such role has no bearing on whether the communications are covered by executive privilege. The _Espy_ case in the federal Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 1997 actually narrowed the scope of executive privilege when they said _it covers communications made or received by presidential advisers in the course of preparing advice for the president_, even if the president never sees those communications. That covers anything his advisers sent or received, wrote or read, while preparing to advise Obama as to how the United States should act and react during the attack and in its aftermath (which includes Susan Rice’s statements, the White House statements, the various investigations, troop deployments, sending the FBI to Benghazi, the indictments of Ahmed Abu Khattala, and so forth). (post shortened, underline added) Can we then expect Obama to claim EP to cover the actions of ol’ Hillary’s ol’ State Dept. Are they all considered presidential advisers? Would the CIA operatives and assets also be considered presidential advisers? I believe you’ve stumbled on a way to end this whole inquiry by tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/759 "2014-05-30T17:31:13Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I don’t know about you guys, but I have _so_ many unanswered questions about how this select committee on Benghazi was formed. I can only assume that Kaiser **door** “I love big government so much that I want to take out out behind the middle school and get it pregnant” **hinge** will support my calls to spend more taxpayer dollars on a super-select committee to investigate the formation of this select committee. You seem to have misspelled my nom de plume. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/760 "2014-05-30T17:31:28Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I read the part where Clinton writes, _'Clinton writes. “That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people_." ’ > > If that were true, there wouldn’t have been a need for an investigation. The lack of transparency created the need for more investigations and finally, the bipartisan creation of a Select Committee. Do you not have any idea how things work in Washington, D.C.? The only need there ever is for an investigation is the possibility that some politcal gain could be had from one. If you don’t understand this simple point, and why it is the only reason that investigations into Benghazi continue even now, then there’s not much point in even trying to discuss it with you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=39)