Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[WelfareQueen]

I've read all of this and some interesting facts have emerged.


1. Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit. It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks. The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.


2. The liberals defenders of Benghazi seem to say it was a terrorists attack (the President allegedly called it a terrorist attack) but then say the NY Times article was correct and it was not a terrorist attack. So to my liberal friends....was it a terrorist attack or was it not? Please be clear.

3. Liberals also seem to be saying Benghazi is a non-issue, yet they have spent 55 pages discussing this "non-issue." Obviously it is an issue to generate this amount of discussion, and it is a potential major liability to Hillary if she runs in 2016. That is what is generating all the angst.

4. I think the reason liberals continue to contradict themselves on this issue is because the Obama Administration has changed their story so many times. Again...was it a terrorist attack or not? Some Obama people say it was...some say no depending on the person, the situation, or who they are talking too. So which is it? Thanks.

 

[Theowl32]

I've read all of this and some interesting facts have emerged.


1. Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit. It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks. The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.


2. The liberals defenders of Benghazi seem to say it was a terrorists attack (the President allegedly called it a terrorist attack) but then say the NY Times article was correct and it was not a terrorist attack. So to my liberal friends....was it a terrorist attack or was it not? Please be clear.

3. Liberals also seem to be saying Benghazi is a non-issue, yet they have spent 55 pages discussing this "non-issue." Obviously it is an issue to generate this amount of discussion, and it is a potential major liability to Hillary if she runs in 2016. That is what is generating all the angst.

4. I think the reason liberals continue to contradict themselves on this issue is because the Obama Administration has changed their story so many times. Again...was it a terrorist attack or not? Some Obama people say it was...some say no depending on the person, the situation, or who they are talking too. So which is it? Thanks.

The left cannot see how they are being used to launch Hillary, and this is what this is all about.

They still believe it was all spontaneous.

Regardless of the fact that Obama claimed it was an organized terror attack, as pointed out by Crowley (as his moronic constituency applauded in the back ground), and now the morons on the left are saying Obama was actually right when he initially claimed it was only spontaneous caused by a video.

I still have no real idea what they are saying. Except paperview I believe is saying all of the attacks were spontaneous and the fact they happened on 911 was a mere coincidence, even though the Obama administration said it was an organized attack.

So, what was Obama right about then? I still have no idea what they are claiming he was right about.

 

[9thIDdoc]

And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.

True. But that is just one of several reasons he should be impeached.

 

[Jroc]

And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.

True. But that is just one of several reasons he should be impeached.

He should be impeached for violating his oath to protect and defend the constitution.

 

[paperview]

...

I still have no real idea what they are saying. Except paperview I believe is saying all of the attacks were spontaneous and the fact they happened on 911 was a mere coincidence, even though the Obama administration said it was an organized attack.
....

No. You're not even bothering to read - or care to learn, and you've made your lack of willingness to understand or discern what is being said well known.

Not for you - because you are here just to insult and tell us you won't bother reading, but for the others, who are reading and want to gather the gist of what seems so damn difficult for hardheads to grasp,

I'll repeat what I posted earlier, with highlights for the short readers:

From the NYT account

Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya.

But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away. Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.
​

The whole fucking world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people.

It's like some can't imagine concurrent things can happen, that both things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.

 

[paperview]

And to add:


DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle.

It was two 20-minute battles separated by about six hours.

The idea that this was one continuous event is just incorrect.

And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. There is some significant physics involved. And the time available, given the intelligence available, I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time. [CNN, State of the Union, 2/3/13]

Two separate attacks. Some were part of the planned attack,

some were spurred by the video,

some were there to loot,

some were there as the ferver and intensity grew to show their support for their angry countrymen,

and some were there for other reasons -- you know, when mobs converge, there are a multiplicity of motivators that drive different individuals.

Weird, I know, huh?

 

[JimH52]

Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.

The NYT interviewed hundreds of Libyans with an understanding of the situation

Who did Republicans talk to?

Rush Limbaugh....

 

[Theowl32]

...

I still have no real idea what they are saying. Except paperview I believe is saying all of the attacks were spontaneous and the fact they happened on 911 was a mere coincidence, even though the Obama administration said it was an organized attack.
....

No. You're not even bothering to read - or care to learn, and you've made your lack of willingness to understand or discern what is being said well known.

Not for you - because you are here just to insult and tell us you won't bother reading, but for the others, who are reading and want to gather the gist of what seems so damn difficult for hardheads to grasp,

I'll repeat what I posted earlier, with highlights for the short readers:

From the NYT account

Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy. No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya.

But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away. Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.
​

The whole fucking world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people.

It's like some can't imagine concurrent things can happen, that both things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.

The Fox narrative.

Again, you claim it was all due to a video.

You deny the other reports that said that Benghazi embassy was requesting more security, and I guess you still maintain that it happening on 911 was a coincidence.

You are denying that Hillary failed miserably (which reflected on the Obama administration in an election year and a couple months away from November 6th) when she did not respond adequately to their repeated requests.

What to do? Repeat the bullshit claim that was spontaneous and they had no prior warnings or requests. Not to mention orders to stand down as the 7 hour long assault took place. They gave them up, cause they did not want to risk a disaster in an election year two months prior to November 6th. Benghazi, afterall was their little baby, when Hillary and Rice claimed, they came they saw......



Watch that again you stubborn left wing, intolerable, know it all, hack.

There are far more reports that indicate this was a political disaster, AND THE FUCKING NARRATIVE of a spontaneous attack was put out by this fucking administration. Then.....in the political debates, after it was more than clear that they dropped the ball along with more insidious reports, Obama claimed he said it was an ORGANIZED TERROR ATTACK as said by Crowley.


However, Crowley had a problem. Now, that she had done her damage, it was clear that she was actually throwing Hillary under the bus. Well, the Clinton News Network could not have that, so she admitted she screwed up days after she made Obama look good before the November 6th elections.





^^^^^^^^^^^^

CNN attempts to repairing Hillary.

It worked. Why, cause really and truly paperview. You and your types are nothing but pawns. Shills for the left. You are too easy.

The fact is you are the worst types of ignorant. You are the types that always believe you are the smartest ones in the room, and in reality, it is the exact opposite.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

1. Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit. It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks. The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.

It absolutely was a terrorist attack. Who is saying that it was not? The question was whether or not it was planed or spontaneous (or some planing)

2. The liberals defenders of Benghazi seem to say it was a terrorists attack (the President allegedly called it a terrorist attack) but then say the NY Times article was correct and it was not a terrorist attack. So to my liberal friends....was it a terrorist attack or was it not? Please be clear.

This was always called "an act of terror."

3. Liberals also seem to be saying Benghazi is a non-issue, yet they have spent 55 pages discussing this "non-issue." Obviously it is an issue to generate this amount of discussion, and it is a potential major liability to Hillary if she runs in 2016. That is what is generating all the angst.

Because it is a huge source of misinformation and out-right lies. Guess you were hoping that we would all just "go along?"

4. I think the reason liberals continue to contradict themselves on this issue is because the Obama Administration has changed their story so many times. Again...was it a terrorist attack or not? Some Obama people say it was...some say no depending on the person, the situation, or who they are talking too. So which is it?

Obama and others have steadfastly claimed that Benghazi was an act of terror. Like any other incident, intelligence takes a while to be gathered up and deciphered.

 

[paperview]

For a good little Wonkette read, written as only the Wonkette does, I'll drop this here for some to chomp on (no, cons, this isn't for you. You wouldn't get it anyway.):

New York Times’ Detailed Investigation Ends Rancor Over Benghazi Forever

Over the weekend, the New York Times released its big investigative report on the September 11, 2012, attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The article by David Kirkpatrick suggested that several aspects of the rightwing narrative don’t hold water — particularly the claims that the “Innocence of Muslims” video had nothing to do with the attack, that the attack had been planned far in advance, and that it was an al Qaeda operation. The thorough report led critics of the Obama administration to say, “Ah, we see. Well, so much for that, then. So maybe it wasn’t Watergate plus Pearl Harbor times 9/11 after all.”

Haha, we are simply “taking the urine” there! Of course the wingnut brigade took issue with the report, because everyone knows that no one in Libya had access to Egyptian TV reports about the video (or if they did, they simply shrugged off its mockery of the prophet Mohammed, because rioting over a video is just silly).

And everyone knows that all radical Islamic groups are part of al Qaeda, just like all biting dogs are pit bulls — this is just science. And everyone knows that the attack was planned in advance, because we all saw Darrel Issa on Fox News saying it was.

The latest battle over the events of Benghazi was fought in a number of hit-and-run skirmishes on Sunday’s newsgab shows; Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Fox News Sunday that the story was inaccurate because

“they didn’t talk to people on the ground who were doing the fighting and shooting and the intelligence gathering. When you put that volume of information, I think that proves that that story’s just not accurate.”​

​

People on the ground! Except that David Kirkpatrick did indeed talk to quite a few of them — not a single one of his sources in Benghazi was hovering, in fact. Kirkpatrick said on NBC’s Meet the Press that part of the problem is that American politicians tend to call all Islamic radicals “al Qaeda” regardless of whether the groups have an actual connection with the al Qaeda organization:

“There’s just no chance that this was an al Qaeda attack if, by al Qaeda, you mean the organization founded by Osama bin Laden,” he said. “If you’re using the term al Qaeda to describe even a local group of Islamist militants who may dislike democracy or have a grudge against the United States, if you’re going to call anybody like that al Qaeda, then okay.”
Kirkpatrick continued, “Certainly there were some anti-Western, Islamist militants involved in this attack. But to me, that’s a semantic difference and not a useful way of answering the original question.”
​

Obviously, this is the kind of biased nit-picking that you’d expect from a liberal news organization that thinks fine gradations of meaning matter — the ultra-far-left New York Times doesn’t even recognize that mandating that people buy private health insurance is socialized medicine.

More bubble gum fun at the link: New York Times | Detailed Investigation Ends Rancor Over Benghazi Forever​

 

[Theowl32]

1. Conservative folks seem to be saying all the available reporting other than the NY Times indicates the Times story over the weekend is basically complete bullshit. It does not help the Times' case that their own reporting on multiple occasions in the past said Benghazi was the result of terrorist attacks. The mountain of evidence on a bipartisan basis says if was a terrorist attack.

It absolutely was a terrorist attack. Who is saying that it was not? The question was whether or not it was planed or spontaneous (or some planing)

2. The liberals defenders of Benghazi seem to say it was a terrorists attack (the President allegedly called it a terrorist attack) but then say the NY Times article was correct and it was not a terrorist attack. So to my liberal friends....was it a terrorist attack or was it not? Please be clear.

This was always called "an act of terror."

3. Liberals also seem to be saying Benghazi is a non-issue, yet they have spent 55 pages discussing this "non-issue." Obviously it is an issue to generate this amount of discussion, and it is a potential major liability to Hillary if she runs in 2016. That is what is generating all the angst.

Because it is a huge source of misinformation and out-right lies. Guess you were hoping that we would all just "go along?"

4. I think the reason liberals continue to contradict themselves on this issue is because the Obama Administration has changed their story so many times. Again...was it a terrorist attack or not? Some Obama people say it was...some say no depending on the person, the situation, or who they are talking too. So which is it?

Obama and others have steadfastly claimed that Benghazi was an act of terror. Like any other incident, intelligence take a while to be gathered up and deciphered.

Take a look folks.

Both sides of the argument.

You have to stand in awe at how they deal with their cognitive dissonance. Let me clarify it for you. WHEN WE CLAIM it was an ACT OF TERROR, it means the attacks were planned. Meaning, it happened on the anniversary of 911, and it was far more organized for it to have been some spontaneous thing.

Also, the fact is Hillary failed to respond to the repeated requests for more security......


Here, since you will all use the NY Times as your source, here:

Progress Report on Benghazi Terror Attack Investigation | Speaker.gov

^^^^
The 46 page official report. Want to read it? No? Let me highlight it for you.

A 46-page “progress report” released by five Republican House committees of jurisdiction indicates that security cuts at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton. This contradicts her January 23, 2013 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee declaring exactly the opposite. On that occasion she said under oath: “I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB (Accountability Review Board) placed that responsibility.” Yet a cable bearing her signature dated March 28, 2012, acknowledges a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for additional security assets, but orders the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

Hillary clearly wanted to put all accountabilities for the ugly Benghazi matter out of public sight and mind. When Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asked her why she, her State Department and the White House, who immediately knew differently, continued to blame the deadly assault on our consulate upon an obscure anti-Muslim video for weeks afterwards, she angrily pounded the table and retorted: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point, does it make?”

The House interim report states that “reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton”. It also concludes that dishonest changes to the public talking points discussing the entire Benghazi debacle were concocted at the behest of the White House to make the Obama administration look good. After original versions of the attack were drafted and the editing process began, “draft talking points were sent to officials, throughout the Executive Branch, (and) senior State Department officials requested the talking points be changed to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Let me know if you want more. The simple fact is NY Times is doing damage control for Hillary. Launching her 2016 campaign, and this will be her biggest problem.

The usual squishpots on the left will carry the water for these pathetic liars.

I cannot believe there are still morons on the left still parroting bullshit about spontaneous attacks, even after the administration later changed that narrative. It has been a long foregone conclusion that there nothing spontaneous about these.

Yet, here we are. One NY Times article, and they are all get off the hook.

 

[packerbacker]

Then which story is odumbo going to stick with? Ths is all smoke and mirrors to pave the way for ol' Hillary. Notice how she has been out of the limelight lately? She wants to see how this healthcare thing rolls out before she chooses which wagon to jump on. More wool to pull over the sheeples eyes.

 

[Theowl32]

Progress Report on Benghazi Terror Attack Investigation | Speaker.gov

The report charges that: “The administration’s talking points were developed in an interagency process that focused more on protecting the reputation and credibility of the State Department than on explaining to the American people the facts surrounding the fatal attacks.” It quotes one email saying that there was concern that members of Congress would attack the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings”. Further, it states that: “Those edits struck any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region, that there had been previous attacks in Benghazi by al-Qaeda-linked groups in Benghazi and eastern Libya, and that extremists linked to al-Qaeda may have participated in the attack on the Benghazi Mission.”

The talking points representing the attack on the Benghazi compound as a “spontaneous” demonstration provoked by an anti-Muslim video were known to be false at the time soon after the attacks. This was before the White House dispatched U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to present that story on five Sunday morning talk shows. Also, contrary to administration rhetoric, protection of classified information had no influence in the editing process that produced the talking points narrative. No concern about this issue was mentioned in email traffic among senior administration officials who were involved.

According to the House report, the White House and branches of the Obama administration knew or learned quite a lot about the Benghazi tragedy at the time disingenuous accounts were repeatedly released to the public. CIA Director David Petraeus met with members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 14, telling them that CIA briefing notes included:

House Report Says Hillary Clinton Lied About Benghazi Attack - Investors.com

Information about five previous attacks on foreign interests in Benghazi since April 2012.

Potential links to al-Qaida connected to Libyan militia, Ansar al-Sharia.

Previous CIA assessment groups linked to al-Qaida in eastern Libya.

Many in Congress believe that Benghazi survivors who were evacuated after the attacks have been held incommunicado to keep politically-damaging information about an Obama administration failure to offer a military response from being released. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News that “The bottom line is they feel they can’t come forth…They’ve been told to be quiet.” Graham said: “We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from American people and Congress…people who were there in real time to tell the story.”

On April 17, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) told Secretary Kerry at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing: “We have made request after request about, for example, just to get the list of the people who were evacuated from Benghazi, and we haven’t even gotten that, much less some important questions.” Rohrabacher emphasized: “We need to talk to the people who are on the scene. Can you give us a commitment now that this administration, you will be coming up with the request, the honest request of this committee as to who was evacuated and how to talk to them so we can get a straight answer and an understanding of what happened in Benghazi?”

Kerry On Benghazi: "We Got A Lot More Important Things To Move On To" | RealClearPolitics

Kerry responded that he didn’t think anybody lied to anybody, and “let’s find out exactly, together, what happened because we need… we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.”

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Take a look folks.

Both sides of the argument.

You have to stand in awe at how they deal with their cognitive dissonance. Let me clarify it for you. WHEN WE CLAIM it was an ACT OF TERROR, it means the attacks were planned. Meaning, it happened on the anniversary of 911, and it was far more organized for it to have been some spontaneous thing.

Also, the fact is Hillary failed to respond to the repeated requests for more security...


Let me know if you want more. The simple fact is NY Times is doing damage control for Hillary. Launching her 2016 campaign, and this will be her biggest problem.

The usual squishpots on the left will carry the water for these pathetic liars.

I cannot believe there are still morons on the left still parroting bullshit about spontaneous attacks, even after the administration later changed that narrative. It has been a long foregone conclusion that there nothing spontaneous about these.

Yet, here we are. One NY Times article, and they are all get off the hook.

Who quoted the NYT? Me? I am posting mostly from prior research I have already done on the subject. I have not read the NYT version of the events.


If you actually read what I had written, you would see that those were my words - not the Times'.

WHEN WE CLAIM it was an ACT OF TERROR, it means the attacks were planned. Meaning, it happened on the anniversary of 911, and it was far more organized for it to have been some spontaneous thing.

You did not really give a reason here to support your assertion that this was a planed event. Screaming your convoluted definition of TERROR does not explain anything.

Oy, this is getting a tad bit annoying.

 

[Amelia]

Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it

 

[Theowl32]

Take a look folks.

Both sides of the argument.

You have to stand in awe at how they deal with their cognitive dissonance. Let me clarify it for you. WHEN WE CLAIM it was an ACT OF TERROR, it means the attacks were planned. Meaning, it happened on the anniversary of 911, and it was far more organized for it to have been some spontaneous thing.

Also, the fact is Hillary failed to respond to the repeated requests for more security...


Let me know if you want more. The simple fact is NY Times is doing damage control for Hillary. Launching her 2016 campaign, and this will be her biggest problem.

The usual squishpots on the left will carry the water for these pathetic liars.

I cannot believe there are still morons on the left still parroting bullshit about spontaneous attacks, even after the administration later changed that narrative. It has been a long foregone conclusion that there nothing spontaneous about these.

Yet, here we are. One NY Times article, and they are all get off the hook.

Who quoted the NYT? Me? I am posting mostly from prior research I have already done on the subject. I have not read the NYT version of the events.


If you actually read what I had written, you would see that those were my words - not the Times'.

Yeah, when you claim Obama "steadfastly" claimed it was an ACT OF TERROR is you trying to obfuscate the point (through the liberal narrative as pushed by Candy Crowley) from the notion that Obama clearly said it was spontaneous as a result of a video.

In your other quote.....you say this:

The question was whether or not it was planed or spontaneous (or some planing)

Well, that is what the administration was claiming. You are saying it is most likely both. Meaning, even a "spontaneous attack" is an ACT OF TERROR. However, in this discussion or debate or controversy, there is a distinction. Meaning, if it was an ACT OF TERROR as we are saying, it means there was definite planning. Logistical steps being taken. If you want to believe there was no planning for the date 9/11 and it was simply something on the spur of moment that the administration was not prepared for, then fine. Of course, the fact it was on 911 and there was no heightened security should be indicative of this administration unreal incompetence, even if there were no warnings. I can assure you, that across the world, the embassies routinely raised security on that date, every year since that date.


The fact is there was not enough security and there were repeated requests. You trying to link the two together by claiming a spontaneous act is the same thing as ACT OF TERROR is you not getting the point, and attempting to take accountability from an adminsitration that let 4 people die for political expediency.

PERIOD.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it

This is getting really tiresome. Glad you guys feel no real need to explain your positions and instead have unlimited amounts of time to blame liberals for all your problems. This is PROVEN to work! 2016 can't come fast enough!

More potoshops pics of Obama will be greatly appreciated.

Please post away and enjoy your next shellacking at the polls - you can always blame it on voter-fraud, reorganization of voting districts and Obama buying votes with unlimited EBT cards.

I love it!

 

[paperview]

... I can assure you, that across the world, the embassies routinely raised security on that date, every year since that date. ...

Wait - you still think this happened at the Libyan Embassy?

Do you know how many consulates we have around the world?

Do you not know this happened at a temporary facility, and not even a consulate?

Do you know most of the officials there were working for the CIA, not State?

Do you know that building was basically a CIA operation?

I mean, basic stuff man. Learnz it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.

Yes we've heard this speech before. Can't you come up with anything more informative to add to the discussion instead of the same liberal talking points memo? It's really rather boring and lacking of any real fact related substance.

 

[Theowl32]

... I can assure you, that across the world, the embassies routinely raised security on that date, every year since that date. ...

Wait - you still think this happened at the Libyan Embassy?

Do you know how many consulates we have around the world?

Do you not know this happened at a temporary facility, and not even a consulate?

Do you know most of the officials there were working for the CIA, not State?

Do you know that building was basically a CIA operation?

I mean, basic stuff man. Learnz it.

You should keep on thinking the attacks carried out on 911 were spontaneous. Makes you look like the smartest water carrying squishpot for the democratic party there is.

Yes, the security is indeed heightened across the world, especially in the middle east on 9/11 every year.

The fact you do not know that, or seem to think that is ridiculous leaves me to one conclusion about you.

Do you actually work for this pathetic administration? You seem to fit right in with all of their arrogant know it all academia presumptions, bullshit, and incompetence. I mean, are you Hillary herself?