Mike Lester for June 30, 2016

That shouldn’t be Uncle Sam. It should be Trey Gowdy, the “fair and unbiased” writer of the report.

How many more millions do you want to spend to find nothing new?

Just another example of Mr. Lester butchering reality..The sister of the ambassador who was killed says that Congress, not Clinton, holds responsibility for what happened..Dr. Anne Stevens, from the interview with the New Yorker: “I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta (for Stevens’ death). They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world…But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted…” .But for those who live in the world of partisan hate, that doesn’t matter..Tacky, Mr. Lester. Tacky.

Can’t wait for her to visit Benghazi.

The domains of the Republicans and Democrats (inhabited mostly by Silents and Boomers) are shrinking while the more truthful, objective Unaffiliated domain (mostly inhabited by Gen-Xers and Millennials) is growing.

Toonist Revisonist

Why.. are the deaths of “these 4 men” so important? I suspect more than 4 died that day. Are not all men equal? Is not one death one death too many?It seems you are willing to dismiss the death of hundreds of thousands yet get all bent out of shape over 4.

Democrats offered to work with Chairman Gowdy on a joint report, and even offered to give him a draft of the report ahead of time. Instead, he mocked the idea and decided to go it alone right before the presidential conventions. The partisan report was not checked against evidence, rather it was a seventh attempt at a Republican smear job on Clinton. Just another partisan hack creating fake make-em-up fodder for partisan hacks.

Good work. Lester is happy to make a few bucks amusing those who hate Clinton & Obama more than they hate the people who actually murdered Stevens.

I’ve already hit on the Chelsea email above, in that very comment. So why ask a silly question?.Beyond that, it’s a convenient and atrocious abuse of the word “guilty” for cheap points. If there was any grounds for an actual charge or criminal procedure, it would already be moving forward. There isn’t..Beyond that, Mr. Lester’s depiction of the media is also disingenuous, at best. The sheer amount of coverage of this matter has been massive, but for the partisans, they need to cry foul if they don’t get the result they want..There is no substantive charge against Clinton on this matter. Jumping up and down and yelling “guilty!”, whether literally or in cartoon form, doesn’t change that.

1. Stevens hired local security, assets were in place, but they weren’t ast trustworthy as he thought.

2. Mercenaries were sent from Tripoli and they did rescue ALL employees at the CIA compound, even though they lost two.

3. Demonstrations at the Embassy in Tripoli were taking place and required our Marines to stay in place, and yes th protests were set off by “the video”.

4. Stevens own family said there was nothing to blame either State, or Hillary for.

The “committee’s” board is pure bull.

What is known is that both parties in Congress reduced funding requests for embassy security. As the relative of an ambassador, Dr. Stevens would have a unique perspective on this, beyond even Benghazi itself..What is also known is that there were political calls from all sides about pointing out the differences in requests versus funding..And I made it clear to focus on Congress, both parties. So when you talk about “seeing hate”, one must assume you’re referring to yourself and your comments here. To say otherwise would be a lie.

Nine Benghazi hearings and you are still unsure?Republicons must be the most inefficient people on earth.

The forth branch of government. The Supreme Court of Lester…..

I am going to say something now that is going to make many people angry but there is nothing factually wrong. By September 2012 Benghazi was a security nightmare. The Turks and the Tunisians and both closed their diplomatic missions in the city after being attacked by Islamic terrorists. A convoy carrying the British ambassador had been attacked. The US had moved most of its diplomatic personnel from Benghazi to Tripoli earlier that year. Of the 35 US personnel in Benghazi, 28 were CIA employees or CIA contract, most of whom had military background. After the State Department moved its workers to Tripoli, it classified the post in Benghazi as a “Special Diplomatic Mission.” Many times it has been referred to as a “consulate,” but it wasn’t a consulate. It didn’t provide consular services nor was it accredits as a consulate by the host nation. The “Special Diplomatic Mission” was a cover the State Depertment was providing for the CIA.The main mission for the US operatives in Benghazi was to hunt down, apprehend, — and if necessary — kill Islamic extremists. There job was also to disarm the militias that were considered a threat to the weak post-Qaddafi regime that was trying to govern Libya.Knowing all this, Chris Steven not only visited Benghazi, he did it on September 11, at a time when security would be at the greatest risk.

Since Eisenhowers was president in 1959, every US administration has experienced an attack on a US diplomatic site. Some of the worst attacks were during the Reagan Administration. On April 18, 1983 a suicide bomber killed 63 persons — 17 Americans — at US Embassy in Beirut. Among those killed, was Robert Ames, chief CIA Mideast analyst and 7 other CIA employees. This attack had a devastating affect on CIA operation in the Mideast for years to come. The interesting part is, the US setup a temporary embassy in a safe area of Beirut. On September 20, 1984, the new Embassy was also attacked killing 24 people but “only” two Americans. The attack on both sites were carried out in a similar manner.In between the attacks on the embassies, on October 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were attacked by a suicide bomber killing 241 American servicemen.

If anything, Hillary fell on the sword for the CIA. Like I said, 28 of the 35 personel at Benghazi were CIA employees or contract employees. This was a CIA operation and the State Department provided cover for by designating it “Special Diplomatic Mission.” The fact that she has taken the abuse and blame for others’ mistakes just confirms how much guts she has.

Well said leftwingpatriot

Do you suppose Congress voted money to enhance security at embassies? I’m pretty certain the Administration requested it.

It’s the same old rule. “Follow the money.”You’ll often find Congress in the middle.

Mike, you know youre doing a good job when the token trollls show up. I wonder how much the DNC pays them to cover your cartoons…

The first half of your comment at least tried to reference facts; the second half went off the reservation, but we’ll get there in a moment..First, read the details from all of the reports, and the timeline about the groups taking credit initially for the attack, who also cited the video as partial motivation. That information would be in addition to ground observations and other intel, and would have been part of Clinton’s initial reference point when she sent those first emails..As I said above, the greatest flaw on her immediate end was rushing to comment while the fog was still heavy, rather than waiting. This is a double-edged sword, however; if they had held off on commenting, we probably would have had panels investigating that, too. However, it’s worth noting that the measured approach is what the right-wing tends to belittle and attack about the Obama administration..None of what you’ve posted contradicts that account, nor does it establish guilt..And that’s where the rest of your claims go off the rails. “Guilt” isn’t yours to dole out, either; it’s a legal standard, and there is no factual foundation for guilt here. Period..But what we have from you, from Mr. Lester, from so many others is “Hillary is a liar”, “Obama is a liar”, “guilty, guilty, guilty”, and a host of other tantrums..Do none of you realize that you’re betraying the heart of conservative legal principles when you do this? Or do you not care?.Particularly, conservative legal scholars have been fighting for mens rea reform in the legal system (Michigan is a major example of this). They’ve been fighting for the idea that you can’t just grab the pitchforks and convict someone for something they had no intent to do or had no knowledge of, but instead must focus on the culpable mind..That’s the rule of law, which is essential in protecting us from government tyranny..And yet you, Mr. Lester, and every other partisan zealot want to throw away genuine conservative values to attack the enemy of the day. So what happens when Clinton is gone, and the hyped-up, fabricated process and mob mentality you helped create is turned against you?.There is NO evidence of any intent to lie, fabricate evidence, or any other criminal standard. Poor communication management, yes; poor intelligence vetting, yes. Poor local management of resources, yes. Failure of Congress to address needed resources and funding through open debate, on the part of both parties, yes..But every time you and Mr. Lester go off the rails like this, you do long-term damage to the rule of law and common sense..Knock it off.

To directly quote you, from above: “People here are actually saying “Stevens KNEW it was dangerous and he went anyway.””.The problem: no one said that on this thread. It’s a lie; thus, none of your claims on this have standing..The “Find” command is a handy tool. For instance, it found this quote from Uncle Joe: “Stevens knew Benghazi was dangerous & believed the security would be adequate for his stay there.” It also found this from leftwing: “Knowing all this [the CIA involvement and the vulnerability of the position], Chris Steven not only visited Benghazi, he did it on September 11, at a time when security would be at the greatest risk.”.No one said what you have quoted. No one. Leftwing’s comment is close, but only if you ignore the rest of what he wrote in this feed, which makes it clear that his intent is not what you would claim..What credibility can you have when you just got caught making up a quote?

The military officer in charge of the region is the one who handles security. Why would you expect Hillary to be flying in on a chopper to rescue people.