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

[Kosh]

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

Says the newly branded far left drone!

 

[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.

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..

DIDN'T NOTICE THE 12 LINKS IN THE ACTUAL POST INCLUDING LATIMES,NYTIMES, BLOOMBERG, ABC, ETC HUH?

 

[S.J.]

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..

DIDN'T NOTICE THE 12 LINKS IN THE ACTUAL POST INCLUDING LATIMES,NYTIMES, BLOOMBERG, ABC, ETC HUH?

All left wing mouthpieces.

 

[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.

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..

DIDN'T NOTICE THE 12 LINKS IN THE ACTUAL POST INCLUDING LATIMES,NYTIMES, BLOOMBERG, ABC, ETC HUH?

Yes links to far left drone blog sites does not help the onion style site you quoted..

 

[Rustic]

Poach more Rinos...

 

[S.J.]

If there's nothing that could have been done, why did they have to make up a story about a video?

 

[S.J.]

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?

Sock?

 

[nuhuh]

If there's nothing that could have been done, why did they have to make up a story about a video?

Why did they find no evidence of wrongdoing even if they did?

 

[S.J.]

If there's nothing that could have been done, why did they have to make up a story about a video?

Why did they no evidence of wrongdoing even if they did?

Could you speak English, please?

 

[nuhuh]

If there's nothing that could have been done, why did they have to make up a story about a video?

Why did they no evidence of wrongdoing even if they did?

Could you speak English, please?

I edited my response, but since this is the third or fourth time I have repeated it I was hoping you could finally put two and two together, I guess I was hoping for too much.

 

[Stephanie]

Bush was barley transitioned into office when 9/11 happened. Business insider take with a grain of salt. Billy had as much a hand it as Bush. you believe what you want. But billy didn't keep us anymore safe then Bush.

 

[nuhuh]

Bush was barley transitioned into office when 9/11 happened. Business insider take with a grain of salt. Billy had as much a hand it as Bush. you believe what you want. But billy didn't keep us anymore safe then Bush.

The Clinton Administration warned the incoming Bush Administration of an impending attack and they were told in so many words that the adults were in charge now. Zacarias Moussauoi was arrested and his computer was seized in early August and no one bothered to look at his computer which had plans of the attack on it. The Mossad went to Washington in early August and warned them also but it was dismissed because they were focused on Iraq.

There were many other warnings and they all went ignored. I'll even guess that the look that everyone saw on Bush's face when they told him was one of being caught because he damn well should have known and he should have acted.

Arrogance did the Bush in, that and the fact his team was focused elsewhere. George told us that history will render its verdict somewhere down the road. From what we've gathered thus far, history will not be kind at all.

 

[IsaacNewton]

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.

This is the new conservative movement created by Faux News and con-media, aka radio. They are fed lies and they have been conditioned to accept and believe these lies EVEN when faced with absolute evidence from their own party of the contrary.

These people need to feel good about who they are and what they believe more than they need to see reality. So they will reject any facts or evidence that contradicts their narrow self-fulfilling prophecies.

The Republicans have already admitted this whole Ben Gassy bullshit was nothing more than a political pile designed exclusively to harm Hilllary Clinton's political career. Those are the facts.

But cons would have to admit their party and their cohort lies to such a degree and uses the dead bodies of Americans for nothing more than a political football. And they will reject this reality with all they are worth.

 

[Stephanie]

If there's nothing that could have been done, why did they have to make up a story about a video?

Yes, that's what their cult followers don't want to accept. they LIED and then covered up that they lied.

 

[nuhuh]

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.

This is the new conservative movement created by Faux News and con-media, aka radio. They are fed lies and they have been conditioned to accept and believe these lies EVEN when faced with absolute evidence from their own party of the contrary.

These people need to feel good about who they are and what they believe more than they need to see reality. So they will reject any facts or evidence that contradicts their narrow self-fulfilling prophecies.

The Republicans have already admitted this whole Ben Gassy bullshit was nothing more than a political pile designed exclusively to harm Hilllary Clinton's political career. Those are the facts.

But cons would have to admit their party and their cohort lies to such a degree and uses the dead bodies of Americans for nothing more than a political football. And they will reject this reality with all they are worth.

I agree completely. The irony of this, had this been done on Obama's shift isn't lost on me and I know this crowd would have rushed Obama's ass right out of office. Yet we know how big a failure it was and that 3,000 Americans died on Bush's watch and I have yet to see the Republican who condemns him for his utterly complete failure.

Bush should have been hanged on his "My Pet Goat" reaction alone could you imagine if that had been Obama? Bush shuddered in his boots at that moment and when America needed a leader there was a period of time there when no one knew what was happening and America could have been under attack and the president was out to lunch.

 

[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.

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..

DIDN'T NOTICE THE 12 LINKS IN THE ACTUAL POST INCLUDING LATIMES,NYTIMES, BLOOMBERG, ABC, ETC HUH?

All left wing mouthpieces.

I'll note your inability to even ATTEMPT to refute a single one of them. Thanks anyways

 

[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.

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..

DIDN'T NOTICE THE 12 LINKS IN THE ACTUAL POST INCLUDING LATIMES,NYTIMES, BLOOMBERG, ABC, ETC HUH?

Yes links to far left drone blog sites does not help the onion style site you quoted..

Says the far right drone

 

[S.J.]

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..

DIDN'T NOTICE THE 12 LINKS IN THE ACTUAL POST INCLUDING LATIMES,NYTIMES, BLOOMBERG, ABC, ETC HUH?

All left wing mouthpieces.

I'll note your inability to even ATTEMPT to refute a single one of them. Thanks anyways

Why bother? You would never acknowledge it anyway?

 

[JonK]

Bush was barley transitioned into office when 9/11 happened. Business insider take with a grain of salt. Billy had as much a hand it as Bush. you believe what you want. But billy didn't keep us anymore safe then Bush.

OVER 8 MONTHS IS BARELY? Dozens of HIGH level warnings went unheeded, not even ONE high level meeting at the white house? lol


More Evidence Indicates the Bush Administration Ignored September 11 Warnings




As the 9/11 Commission noted, "There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBS [Presidential Daily Briefings] from January 21 to September 11 that related to Bin Laden." In a section of the report called "The Drumbeat Begins," the Commission highlights a late June briefing that alerts to the "high probability of near-term 'spectacular' terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties … including a 'severe blow' against U.S. and Israeli 'interests' during the next two weeks." But whereas the Commission report describes the threat of attacks worldwide, Eichenwald's exclusive intel specifically cites a domestic threat, one with "dramatic consequences."

However, as Eichenwald writes, the administration was much more concerned with Iraq:

An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

On June 29, the CIA insisted, "The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden." Almost a month later, "the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief."


More Evidence Indicates the Bush Administration Ignored September 11 Warnings

 

[JonK]

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..

DIDN'T NOTICE THE 12 LINKS IN THE ACTUAL POST INCLUDING LATIMES,NYTIMES, BLOOMBERG, ABC, ETC HUH?

All left wing mouthpieces.

I'll note your inability to even ATTEMPT to refute a single one of them. Thanks anyways

Why bother? You would never acknowledge it anyway?

LOL, Your surrender noted