Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then why was the CIA involved?
Because that's their job?
I notice you got off the whole "it happened because of GOP budget cuts!" talking point in a big hurry, OnePercenter. Good move on your part! An even better move would be to refrain from posting bullshit in the first place.
It's the CIA's job to protect foreign embassy's?
Once again you rely on the media to make conclusions for yourself. I prefer to analyze official information for myself.Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented - The Washington Post
"The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission, the panel said in a statement.
The report also noted, chillingly, that the FBIs investigation of the attacks has been hampered in Libya and that 15 people supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States have since been killed in Benghazi. The report said it was unclear whether those killings were related to the inquiry.
The report found no evidence of the kind of political coverup that Republicans have long alleged. "
"In response to the report, the State Department issued an update of its efforts to improve security at overseas posts and make other changes recommended by an independent oversight panel the Accountability Review Board shortly after the attacks. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/u...ficials-resign-following-benghazi-report.html
Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.
You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.
Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.
Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.
Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
you seem to ignore something....Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.
Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.
Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
Once again you rely on the media to make conclusions for yourself. I prefer to analyze official information for myself.
Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.
You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.
I have one question....
The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...
But that was knowing when the attack ended.
How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?
As I heard someone say yesterday...
If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?
Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.
Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.
You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.
I have one question....
The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...
But that was knowing when the attack ended.
How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?
As I heard someone say yesterday...
If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?
Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.
Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.
Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.
Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
your view from the state of libtardia is typical of brain dead liberals. Facts to you are like kryptonite to superman. Facts destroy you libs every time, because your entire philosophy of life is a fraud and a lie.
Both articles are based on and have links to the Senate Report and the report from the independent oversight panel respectively.
You sound like you get your information exclusively from the Echo-Chamber.
I have one question....
The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...
But that was knowing when the attack ended.
How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?
As I heard someone say yesterday...
If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?
Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.
Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.
We already know the reason. The Republican Senate reduced the security budget $360M, which is the reason CIA operatives were killed in the attack.
The Republicans didn't do jack shit by themselves. It's already been proven that cuts had no effect on the security in Benghazi, much of which was supposed to be provided by Libya. We could have gotten our people out of harm's way prior to the anniversary of 9/11, as other countries did, or left the current security in place. Security was removed just before the attack, after pleas for more help were requested. The anniversary of 9/11 should have meant elevated security or evacuation because threat levels are always higher on that day. Again, we knew threats were being made and there is no excuse in the world for not acting. Maybe no one is this administration is smart enough to handle such threats.
There is no way those threats were not known, as they had been made public in the months prior to 9/11. Even family members worried about their loved ones in Benghazi before the attack. I can't believe anyone is so damn stupid that they believe the State Dept said, "Sorry, you'll have to deal with terrorists on your own because we can't afford to help you." That would have to be the way it went for the budget cuts to used as an excuse and even the least sophisticated liberal must understand how lame that is.
The cuts don't explain why the threat was ignored, why stand down orders were issued or why a lie was told to protect the radical Muslims behind it.
Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
your view from the state of libtardia is typical of brain dead liberals. Facts to you are like kryptonite to superman. Facts destroy you libs every time, because your entire philosophy of life is a fraud and a lie.
Yours in an opinion of an Echo-Chambermaid, steeped in paraphrased factoids handed down from your masters based on incomplete and out of context quotes used to deceive the weak minded.
you seem to ignore something....Come on, Boo...at this point it's patently OBVIOUS that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at Benghazi and it's also patently OBVIOUS that the Obama Administration lied about the attack being caused by the YouTube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.
Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.
That being said...
To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....
But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.
Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....
It was campaign time.
His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"
He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"
So he mislead the country for political expediency.
It is not rocket science....
We already know the reason. The Republican Senate reduced the security budget $360M, which is the reason CIA operatives were killed in the attack.
The Republicans didn't do jack shit by themselves. It's already been proven that cuts had no effect on the security in Benghazi, much of which was supposed to be provided by Libya. We could have gotten our people out of harm's way prior to the anniversary of 9/11, as other countries did, or left the current security in place. Security was removed just before the attack, after pleas for more help were requested. The anniversary of 9/11 should have meant elevated security or evacuation because threat levels are always higher on that day. Again, we knew threats were being made and there is no excuse in the world for not acting. Maybe no one is this administration is smart enough to handle such threats.
There is no way those threats were not known, as they had been made public in the months prior to 9/11. Even family members worried about their loved ones in Benghazi before the attack. I can't believe anyone is so damn stupid that they believe the State Dept said, "Sorry, you'll have to deal with terrorists on your own because we can't afford to help you." That would have to be the way it went for the budget cuts to used as an excuse and even the least sophisticated liberal must understand how lame that is.
The cuts don't explain why the threat was ignored, why stand down orders were issued or why a lie was told to protect the radical Muslims behind it.
If that's true, then why did Republicans RAISE embassy security budgets by $2,000,000,000.00 after Benghazi if they were right the first time and it wasn't needed?
And why did the ambassador refuse military security twice?
House Republicans Propose Extra $2B for Embassy Security | Fox Business
Ambassador Stevens Twice Said No To Military Offers Of More Security, U.S. Officials Say: Report
Notice how I added links? One ever from Fox. So right wingers know that's the truth, right?
you seem to ignore something....Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.
That being said...
To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....
But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.
Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....
It was campaign time.
His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"
He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"
So he mislead the country for political expediency.
It is not rocket science....
Actually that was a report that a terrorist group had claimed responsibly on twitter or other social media. No way to confirm that it was true. Fact is the attack on the consulate did not have the hallmarks of an extensively planned al Qaeda operation.
Mitt Romney certainly knew it was campaign time when he launched his attack on the administration during the crisis.
Everyone knew extremist had attacked us and 4 American were dead because of it.
There was no cover-up.
you seem to ignore something....Those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.
Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?
In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "There is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?
Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.
It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.
That being said...
To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....
But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.
Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....
It was campaign time.
His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"
He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"
So he mislead the country for political expediency.
It is not rocket science....
Actually that was a report that a terrorist group had claimed responsibly on twitter or other social media. No way to confirm that it was true. Fact is the attack on the consulate did not have the hallmarks of an extensively planned al Qaeda operation.
Mitt Romney certainly knew it was campaign time when he launched his attack on the administration during the crisis.
Everyone knew extremist had attacked us and 4 American were dead because of it.
There was no cover-up.
I have one question....
The report confirmed that there was not enough time for the military to get there before the attack came to an end...
But that was knowing when the attack ended.
How did the administration know, while the attack was taking place, how long it would last?
As I heard someone say yesterday...
If you were having a heart attack, would you expect the ambulance to head in your direction immediately, or would you be OK if the driver determined there was no way they would get to you in time and therefore not even attempt the drive?
Seeing as the NYT didn't even address this issue, shows me it was nothing more than regurgitating the basics.
Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.
The team from the CIA Annex (which had gone to the Consulate against orders to wait) failed to locate Ambassador Stevens and were forced to withdraw because they were under attack. Are you making the argument THAT situation was so benign that no further military assets were needed in Libya? Really...Boo?
