Jeb Bush slams Donald Trump for saying 9/11 came during George W. Bush’s ‘reign’

[Kosh]

One thing you can be sure of. If 9/11 had occurred on a Democrats watch we would never hear the end of it. 4 dead in Benghazi and it's non-stop, Imagine 3,000!

Republicans ignore the 3,000 because it isn't politically valuable to them. They use the 4 dead in Ben Gassy like vampires at a blood bank.

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

More far left propaganda not connected to reality.

Far left religious scriptures have never been based in fact!

 

[Kosh]

I see you choose partisan bullshit over reality no surprise. I stated very clearly Jeb was refering to the time after 9-11.

Keeping us safe means before the attack too. And so you know, Jeb Bush was a founder and signator to PNAC, which was pushing to remove Saddam Hussein violently since 1998. So you can believe he was pushing his brother into war long before 9/11.

Since keeping us safe means before the attack to according to you then you must feel Bill Clinton bears some of the responsibilty for 9-11 as well right? Before you answer remember that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda carried out multiple attacks against the U.S. during his Presidency those attacks were overseas even so Clinton took only minimal action in response to them so perhaps if Clinton had taken stronger action when he was President 9-11 wouldn't have happened. All of this of course is speculation with the benefit of years of hindsight just like with Bush which proves yet again we can all be a genius with years of hindsight to draw on.

You can deflect all you, like but only one man was president on 9/11. If his government was doing even a minimal job they should have at least looked at Zacarias Moussauoi's computer when they arrested him in Minnesota. The plan was right there and was the most negligent act of all considering Clinton warned them before they even moved into the White House.

Bush and Cheney were too busy and concerned about invading Iraq, disgusting and deadly errors. Negligent is a nice way of putting it, I think it was criminal and had it been Democrats in charge it surely would have been.

Only one deflectiing is you I never claimed Bush wasn't President on 9-11 I'm applying your logic to the previous President and his response or lack of one to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that you used for Bush an honest person could deal with that a blind partisan responds as you did.

Well the buck stops there. There was only one man in charge when the towers went down. It is our patriotic duty to ask questions and hold people responsible except that didn't happen here. The 9/11 commission was stunted from the very beginning, no one got to ask Bush or Cheney questions they wouldn't allow it so the truth will have to wait until we are all long dead. Bush promised us to our faces that he would get the man who caused 9/11, he lied. He failed to act on his own intelligence to finish it and let a member of Saudi royalty skate until Obama cleaned up after him.

Another far left deflection in order to justify their voting for worse than Bush in 2008, 1012 and now in 2016.

 

[jknowgood]

One thing you can be sure of. If 9/11 had occurred on a Democrats watch we would never hear the end of it. 4 dead in Benghazi and it's non-stop, Imagine 3,000!

Republicans ignore the 3,000 because it isn't politically valuable to them. They use the 4 dead in Ben Gassy like vampires at a blood bank.

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

No actually if Clinton and Obama came out and told the truth in the beginning there would be no problem, but the lied about it for nearly two weeks for political purposes.

 

[S.J.]

One thing you can be sure of. If 9/11 had occurred on a Democrats watch we would never hear the end of it. 4 dead in Benghazi and it's non-stop, Imagine 3,000!

Republicans ignore the 3,000 because it isn't politically valuable to them. They use the 4 dead in Ben Gassy like vampires at a blood bank.

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

 

[nuhuh]

Republicans ignore the 3,000 because it isn't politically valuable to them. They use the 4 dead in Ben Gassy like vampires at a blood bank.

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

 

[JonK]

One thing you can be sure of. If 9/11 had occurred on a Democrats watch we would never hear the end of it. 4 dead in Benghazi and it's non-stop, Imagine 3,000!

One thing you can be sure of, if Bill Clinton had killed bin Laden when he had the opportunity there would have been no 9/11 attack.

Q Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens


Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans ignore the 3,000 because it isn't politically valuable to them. They use the 4 dead in Ben Gassy like vampires at a blood bank.

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Obama and Hillary promised to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice.

So did O.J. Simpson.

 

[JonK]

Jeb Bush slams Donald Trump for saying 9/11 came during George W. Bush’s ‘reign’
LOL. Jeb Bush is so freaking pathetic. For some reason he really believes that all the bad things his brother did can't be related to him. And now he says that "George Bush kept us save" when 9/11 happened. Well, because of George Bush and his retarded foreign policy 9/11 happened in the first place. More than that he was so weak that he allowed that disaster to happen. Literally the worst president America ever had.

Truth hurts.

Good little far left drone! Ignore that Clinton had several attempts to take out Bin laden after he declared war on the US in 1996.

Good little far left drone!

Projection from a far right drone


Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?


A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

FULL QUESTION

Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?

FULL ANSWER

Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.

It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer



...Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.

Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

 

[S.J.]

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

 

[nuhuh]

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

The Republican Select House Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of wrongdoing. So that pretty much washes out your theory. That puts the onus on you to show some responsibility and start reading reports by your own House committee members because to slander people when the evidence points elsewhere pretty much makes you the asshole.

 

[Kosh]

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

And you see how the far left will do all they can to excuse their worse than Bush choice..

 

[Kosh]

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

The Republican Select House Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of wrongdoing. So that pretty much washes out your theory. That puts the onus on you to show some responsibility and start reading reports by your own House committee members because to slander people when the evidence points elsewhere pretty much makes you the asshole.

Once again the far left promotes their religious dogma over facts..

 

[JonK]

Republicans ignore the 3,000 because it isn't politically valuable to them. They use the 4 dead in Ben Gassy like vampires at a blood bank.

Hard to take someone seriously when they call it "Ben Gassy". Just sayin'.

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

GOP Report Acknowledges That The U.S. Military Couldn’t Have Changed Benghazi Outcome




In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.


GOP Report Acknowledges That The U.S. Military Couldn’t Have Changed Benghazi Outcome

 

[JonK]

The hearings are a sham and not to be taken seriously. From the beginning the Republicans saw it as a way to knock down Hilary Clinton during the 2016 race.

To use 4 dead Americans as political manure is so beyond despicable, yet you are concerned with semantics. Very telling.

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

Top 5 Myths About the Benghazi Attack


Myth No. 2: The Attack Had Nothing to do With the anti-Islam Video

While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.

As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”

The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”

This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.




Myth No. 3: The Attack Was Pre-Planned and Not Spontaneous



A reporter from Foreign Policy arrived in Benghazi on Sept. 13, spoke with locals, surveyed the facility site and concluded that the “attack was haphazard, poorly planned, and badly executed,” and points out that most of the Americans were able to get away by simply using an armored jeep to escape through the front gate and take off down the road which was not blocked—not exactly the hallmarks of a carefully planned assault.

Bloomberg reported that “accounts from U.S. intelligence officials and Benghazi residents, along with evidence in the burned-out American diplomatic compound, point to a hasty and poorly organized act by men with basic military training and access to weapons widely available in Libya.”

And the Washington Post quoted an intelligence source, saying, “There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” adding, “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

In fact, the official position of the U.S. intelligence community today is still that the attack wasn’t pre-planned. As State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell recently said of UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s much-maligned comments after the attack that she was simply giving the “best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment.”

Myth No. 4: Changing the Talking Points Amounts to a ‘Coverup’

The administration recently released a trove of more than 100 pages of emails showing internal discussion of the talking points concerning the attack going through a dozen different revisions by the State Department and CIA. These are not the emails that were doctored by Republicans and leaked to ABC News, but the actual emails.




In the emails it is clear that the CIA insisted the attack be referred to as spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo and following a protest outside the facility. The State Department wanted references to “Al Qaeda” and “Ansar al Sharia” removed. However, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained the reason for this in the emails, stating, “Why do we want [Congress] to be fingering Ansar al-Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results?”

Ben Rhodes, who was then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, also stated in the emails, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

While there certainly may have been some politics at play here, all of the evidence in the emails suggest that this was the best assessment of the intelligence available at the time and that the State Department and White House were concerned about saying too much before the facts of the investigation were available, while also expressing some concern over Republicans in Congress making political hay out of the attack. All of this is totally not indicative of a cover-up, but simply politics as usual.

Top 5 Myths About the Benghazi Attack

 

[JonK]

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

The Republican Select House Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of wrongdoing. So that pretty much washes out your theory. That puts the onus on you to show some responsibility and start reading reports by your own House committee members because to slander people when the evidence points elsewhere pretty much makes you the asshole.

Once again the far left promotes their religious dogma over facts..

 

[Kosh]

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

The Republican Select House Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of wrongdoing. So that pretty much washes out your theory. That puts the onus on you to show some responsibility and start reading reports by your own House committee members because to slander people when the evidence points elsewhere pretty much makes you the asshole.

Once again the far left promotes their religious dogma over facts..

And it continues!

 

[JonK]

How many terror attacks did we have under Clinton?

so this line of how Bush didn't keep us safe. Well NEITHER did Billy Clinton.

9/11 would have been under him if the truck bomb hadn't malfunctioned (thankfully) on the FIRST: World trade center building bombing. .and then he had the Oklahoma Federal building bombing

these people who want to only blame Bush for 9/11 will no matter what. Others who knows the events that happened under Billy knows he was Responsible and some blame can be on Bush.

I say Billy was MORE Responsible 9/11, because he had a chance to get Bin Laden twice I believe and CHOSE not to.

Qid Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.



Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized

We already knew about the presidential brief from Aug. 6, 2001 that was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The White House has shown that this declassified document was primarily a history of Al Qaeda, not a warning of imminent attack.

But there were other briefings, some seen by Eichenwald, that did warn of an imminent attack.

On May 1 the CIA said that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.

On June 22 it warned that this attack was "imminent."

On June 29 the brief warned of near-term attacks with "dramatic consequences" including major casualties.

On July 1, the briefing said that the terrorist attack had been delayed but "will occur soon."

On July 24, the president was told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months.

These and other similar warnings were ignored by the White House. The Neocons in charge insisted that the threat was instead a coordinated diversion meant to distract attention from Saddam Hussein, according to Eichenwald. This opinion frustrated the intelligence community, who saw the theory as totally illogical.


Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized - Business Insider


Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings

Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings - Investigations

 

[Kosh]

Hillary is responsible for their deaths and you applaud her for it.

You ignore 3,000. Again, what exactly is your argument? Other than you are a partisan hack looking to make make-believe brownie points in your head?

Please list the American embassies around the world that are 100% safe. In the past, present, or future.

You can't because there are none, no matter what we do. Ergo, Republicans are simply eating the rotting flesh of the four dead Americans like political vultures.

It is utterly disgusting and you have chosen to get a plate and fork and spoon as well.

And you want to judge whom? Please Frank Burns, go to the Colonel Flag forum and keep this self-delusion amongst yourselves.

I didn't ignore 3,000 you fucking hack. The ambassador in Benghazi could have been rescued but U.S. special forces were not permitted to help. Then, they advanced that damn lie about a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary's response? "What difference does it make"? You people are despicable.

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

Top 5 Myths About the Benghazi Attack


Myth No. 2: The Attack Had Nothing to do With the anti-Islam Video

While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.

As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”

The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”

This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.




Myth No. 3: The Attack Was Pre-Planned and Not Spontaneous



A reporter from Foreign Policy arrived in Benghazi on Sept. 13, spoke with locals, surveyed the facility site and concluded that the “attack was haphazard, poorly planned, and badly executed,” and points out that most of the Americans were able to get away by simply using an armored jeep to escape through the front gate and take off down the road which was not blocked—not exactly the hallmarks of a carefully planned assault.

Bloomberg reported that “accounts from U.S. intelligence officials and Benghazi residents, along with evidence in the burned-out American diplomatic compound, point to a hasty and poorly organized act by men with basic military training and access to weapons widely available in Libya.”

And the Washington Post quoted an intelligence source, saying, “There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” adding, “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

In fact, the official position of the U.S. intelligence community today is still that the attack wasn’t pre-planned. As State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell recently said of UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s much-maligned comments after the attack that she was simply giving the “best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment.”

Myth No. 4: Changing the Talking Points Amounts to a ‘Coverup’

The administration recently released a trove of more than 100 pages of emails showing internal discussion of the talking points concerning the attack going through a dozen different revisions by the State Department and CIA. These are not the emails that were doctored by Republicans and leaked to ABC News, but the actual emails.




In the emails it is clear that the CIA insisted the attack be referred to as spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo and following a protest outside the facility. The State Department wanted references to “Al Qaeda” and “Ansar al Sharia” removed. However, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained the reason for this in the emails, stating, “Why do we want [Congress] to be fingering Ansar al-Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results?”

Ben Rhodes, who was then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, also stated in the emails, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

While there certainly may have been some politics at play here, all of the evidence in the emails suggest that this was the best assessment of the intelligence available at the time and that the State Department and White House were concerned about saying too much before the facts of the investigation were available, while also expressing some concern over Republicans in Congress making political hay out of the attack. All of this is totally not indicative of a cover-up, but simply politics as usual.

Top 5 Myths About the Benghazi Attack

Information on your source:

Heavy, Inc.: Private Company Information - Businessweek

Heavy, Inc. is an online video company. It owns and operates Heavy.com, an online information and entertainment destination for men that offers information in the areas of comedy, entertainment, news, and action videos; and Heavy Men’s Network, a distribution network reaching men worldwide through music, urban lifestyle, gaming, and comedy. The company was founded in 1999 and is based in New York, New York.

Basically you quoted a site that is like the onion..

 

[JonK]

Then it turns out Benghazi wasn't about the dead it was about the attempt to kill a candidacy. That's the most despicable of all.

No, the cover up by Obama and Clinton was about AVOIDING damage to their political careers. The bitch stood over the caskets of the 4 Americans (who could have been rescued) and assured the families of the victims that they would get the guy who made the YouTube video. What a piece of shit, and you immoral shit heads defend her.

The Republican Select House Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of wrongdoing. So that pretty much washes out your theory. That puts the onus on you to show some responsibility and start reading reports by your own House committee members because to slander people when the evidence points elsewhere pretty much makes you the asshole.

Once again the far left promotes their religious dogma over facts..

And it continues!

Your inability to be honest is noted

 

[Kosh]

How many terror attacks did we have under Clinton?

so this line of how Bush didn't keep us safe. Well NEITHER did Billy Clinton.

9/11 would have been under him if the truck bomb hadn't malfunctioned (thankfully) on the FIRST: World trade center building bombing. .and then he had the Oklahoma Federal building bombing

these people who want to only blame Bush for 9/11 will no matter what. Others who knows the events that happened under Billy knows he was Responsible and some blame can be on Bush.

I say Billy was MORE Responsible 9/11, because he had a chance to get Bin Laden twice I believe and CHOSE not to.

Qid Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.



Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized

We already knew about the presidential brief from Aug. 6, 2001 that was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The White House has shown that this declassified document was primarily a history of Al Qaeda, not a warning of imminent attack.

But there were other briefings, some seen by Eichenwald, that did warn of an imminent attack.

On May 1 the CIA said that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.

On June 22 it warned that this attack was "imminent."

On June 29 the brief warned of near-term attacks with "dramatic consequences" including major casualties.

On July 1, the briefing said that the terrorist attack had been delayed but "will occur soon."

On July 24, the president was told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months.

These and other similar warnings were ignored by the White House. The Neocons in charge insisted that the threat was instead a coordinated diversion meant to distract attention from Saddam Hussein, according to Eichenwald. This opinion frustrated the intelligence community, who saw the theory as totally illogical.


Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized - Business Insider


Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings

Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings - Investigations

Another far left drone? or a banned far left drone?