Lyndsey Graham Who Was Directly Lied To Says House Benghazi Report Full of C R A P

[NYcarbineer]

The time line on this doesn't back up your contention unfortunately. Issa doesn't go after them

Benghazi was a manufactured scandal from the start, and now it's been dismantled.

Maybe you RWnuts can use the scrap heap from it as salvage to manufacture your next scandal.

Just an observation, Carbineer...

It hasn't been especially "hard" to come up with scandals with this White House. It's been more difficult to keep them all straight...

Of course it isn't hard for the Teaparty to come up with the scandal du jour.

Scandal sells in the rightwing media.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The time line on this doesn't back up your contention unfortunately. Issa doesn't go after them

Benghazi was a manufactured scandal from the start, and now it's been dismantled.

Maybe you RWnuts can use the scrap heap from it as salvage to manufacture your next scandal.

Just an observation, Carbineer...

It hasn't been especially "hard" to come up with scandals with this White House. It's been more difficult to keep them all straight...

What you deranged people want to call scandals is your own business.

 

[francoHFW]

As the Associated Press reported, the committee found that there was, “no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.” In essence, it “debunked” the most persistent myths put forward by Congressional Republicans and Fox News.

So, how did Fox cover these findings? Chief White House correspondent Ed Henry, sitting in for Bret Baier on Special Report Friday evening, spent just under 30 seconds discussing the report and the aspects he chose to highlight speak volumes.

“The House Intelligence Committee says the initial assessment of the Benghazi terror attacks two years ago, that they were in fact terrorist in nature, was accurate,” Henry reported. “It says CIA and Obama administration officials later supported the incorrect scenario that the attacks were motivated by an internet video and stuck with that for several days.”

He then pivoted to a new United Nations report that says the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda, adding, “that contradicts the strenuous denials from the Obama administration.”

And that was it.

Could it have been unintentional that Fox left out the fact that it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees like Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes or others, that made the wrong call about the origin of the attack in those first few days? Or the fact that there was no “stand down” order given to a CIA response team once the attack was under way? And what about the theory that the CIA was collecting and shipping arms from Libya to Syria? Not true, according to the report.

But if you are a regular Fox News viewer who has spent the last year hearing these claims over and over again by on-air personalities, you would have absolutely no idea from Henry’s report that any of them had been determined to be false — by a Republican-led committee no less.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who serves on the intelligence panel said in a statement, “It’s my hope that this report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and answered yet again.”

Unless Fox decides to dedicate a fraction of the time they spent hyping up the Benghazi conspiracies to debunking them, there’s very little chance of that happening any time soon.- Mediate
Fox News Barely Covers House Intel Benghazi Report Ed Henry Mediaite

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? in The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? The insistence of Jay Carney that only one word in the intelligence reports were changed by the White House? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...feel free to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

I don't think so. They said it was an attack carried out by extremist who took advantage of the protest or somehow hijacked the protest. Just because the PR department wanted to put a spin on the story doesn't mean there was any kind of crime or cover up.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by liberals like you and Sarah seeing this as a conservative "invention" when one only has to look at how the Obama White House trotted Susan Rice out that Sunday morning to all those talk shows to know that THEY were the ones who were scrambling to diffuse what you refer to

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? in The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? The insistence of Jay Carney that only one word in the intelligence reports were changed by the White House? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...feel free to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

I don't think so. They said it was an attack carried out by extremist who took advantage of the protest or somehow hijacked the protest. Just because the PR department wanted to put a spin on the story doesn't mean there was any kind of crime or cover up.

You really don't want to admit that they knew early on that there was no "protest", do you, Boo? Just can't bring yourself to admit that the Obama White House decided to mislead the American people for political reasons, can you? That hasn't changed because of this latest "report". It's still there...it still happened...and all spin in the world isn't going to change that! I'm sorry. That's reality.

 

[Sarah G]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

Of course Benghazi negatively affects any run Hillary makes in 2016, Sarah! The State Department was her baby and State made some really bad calls on security for our diplomats in Libya. Those calls were made by Hillary. It is what it is. My point all along is that if she'd simply admitted to misjudging the situation, taken responsibility for that faulty judgement and promised to fix the problem...it would have been largely forgotten by now. Instead you'll now have Republicans holding hearings into the debacle that Benghazi became, in the lead up to the 2016 elections which is what a whole lot of Republicans politicians are thrilled to see happen! As I've repeatedly said...I think this was a political miscalculation by Hillary Clinton.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm amused by liberals like you and Sarah seeing this as a conservative "invention" when one only has to look at how the Obama White House trotted Susan Rice out that Sunday morning to all those talk shows to know that THEY were the ones who were scrambling to diffuse what you refer to

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? in The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? The insistence of Jay Carney that only one word in the intelligence reports were changed by the White House? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...feel free to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

I don't think so. They said it was an attack carried out by extremist who took advantage of the protest or somehow hijacked the protest. Just because the PR department wanted to put a spin on the story doesn't mean there was any kind of crime or cover up.

You really don't want to admit that they knew early on that there was no "protest", do you, Boo? Just can't bring yourself to admit that the Obama White House decided to mislead the American people for political reasons, can you? That hasn't changed because of this latest "report". It's still there...it still happened...and all spin in the world isn't going to change that! I'm sorry. That's reality.

The statements were always qualified with the fact that the investigation was ongoing and would be looked to to determine exactly what happened. So no they didn't know for sure what happen, at best they had conflicting reports. I also disagree with your characterization that "The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video?" They got it wrong when they said the extremist joined in or hijacked a protest. But they didn't get the extremist part wrong did they?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by liberals like you and Sarah seeing this as a conservative "invention" when one only has to look at how the Obama White House trotted Susan Rice out that Sunday morning to all those talk shows to know that THEY were the ones who were scrambling to diffuse what you refer to

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? in The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? The insistence of Jay Carney that only one word in the intelligence reports were changed by the White House? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...feel free to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

I don't think so. They said it was an attack carried out by extremist who took advantage of the protest or somehow hijacked the protest. Just because the PR department wanted to put a spin on the story doesn't mean there was any kind of crime or cover up.

You really don't want to admit that they knew early on that there was no "protest", do you, Boo? Just can't bring yourself to admit that the Obama White House decided to mislead the American people for political reasons, can you? That hasn't changed because of this latest "report". It's still there...it still happened...and all spin in the world isn't going to change that! I'm sorry. That's reality.

The statements were always qualified with the fact that the investigation was ongoing and would be looked to to determine exactly what happened. So no they didn't know for sure what happen, at best they had conflicting reports. I also disagree with your characterization that "The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video?" They got it wrong when they said the extremist joined in or hijacked a protest. But they didn't get the extremist part wrong did they?

This really is a simple concept, Boo...

Was there a protest? Yes or no?

If there was no protest then why did the Obama White House continue to push that narrative after they knew that no protest took place?

If there was no cover-up then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails?

 

[Dot Com]

Benghazi was a manufactured scandal from the start, and now it's been dismantled.

Maybe you RWnuts can use the scrap heap from it as salvage to manufacture your next scandal.

^ that

Now Oldstyle can make 4 posts in a row

 

[Sarah G]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

Of course Benghazi negatively affects any run Hillary makes in 2016, Sarah! The State Department was her baby and State made some really bad calls on security for our diplomats in Libya. Those calls were made by Hillary. It is what it is. My point all along is that if she'd simply admitted to misjudging the situation, taken responsibility for that faulty judgement and promised to fix the problem...it would have been largely forgotten by now. Instead you'll now have Republicans holding hearings into the debacle that Benghazi became, in the lead up to the 2016 elections which is what a whole lot of Republicans politicians are thrilled to see happen! As I've repeatedly said...I think this was a political miscalculation by Hillary Clinton.

Nope, there has been polling on all of these trumped up scandals. She won't run if she's in a hopeless situation such as the one you are describing.

 

[Dot Com]

Hey remember that bomshell report we were going to come out with and have been leaking for months?

Yeah well, forget about that

I know right? In their defense, they've only burned-through $13MILLION in taxpayer $$$ in the current witch hunt so far.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

Of course Benghazi negatively affects any run Hillary makes in 2016, Sarah! The State Department was her baby and State made some really bad calls on security for our diplomats in Libya. Those calls were made by Hillary. It is what it is. My point all along is that if she'd simply admitted to misjudging the situation, taken responsibility for that faulty judgement and promised to fix the problem...it would have been largely forgotten by now. Instead you'll now have Republicans holding hearings into the debacle that Benghazi became, in the lead up to the 2016 elections which is what a whole lot of Republicans politicians are thrilled to see happen! As I've repeatedly said...I think this was a political miscalculation by Hillary Clinton.

Nope, there has been polling on all of these trumped up scandals. She won't run if she's in a hopeless situation such as the one you are describing.

Who said it was "hopeless"? Not I. Hillary Clinton goes into any race against a Republican candidate with the full weight of the main stream media behind her. That hasn't changed one iota. Where I think she may run into trouble is if another Democratic challenger pops up who woos that same main stream media away from her much as Barack Obama did back in 2008. If a certain female US Senator from Massachusetts starts bashing Hillary on her record at the State Department will the main stream media back Hillary or Elizabeth Warren?

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary has the same problem this time around that she did last time...she's got a long history that can be examined and critiqued whereas her opponent has very little political history to exploit. That formula worked to perfection for Barack Obama.

 

[paperview]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

Of course Benghazi negatively affects any run Hillary makes in 2016, Sarah! ....

THIS is the number one reason why Ghazi truthers are holding onto this like a hungry dog with a steak bone. Once Romney flamed out, ----> HRC, and 2016.

Everyone knows it. You just revealed it As does every Ghazi truther when they get to talking. It's all about stopping Hillary.

 

[Oldstyle]

You may not have noticed, Sarah but Elizabeth Warren is currently on a "meet and greet" trip through the Middle East. It's the first time she's ever traveled abroad. Such a trip is almost a requirement for anyone considering a run for the Presidency so that you can claim to be "worldly".

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

Of course Benghazi negatively affects any run Hillary makes in 2016, Sarah! ....

THIS is the number one reason why Ghazi truthers are holding onto this like a hungry dog with a steak bone. Once Romney flamed out, ----> HRC, and 2016.

Everyone knows it. You just revealed it As does every Ghazi truther when they get to talking. It's all about stopping Hillary.

Benghazi simply illustrates who Hillary Clinton IS, Paperview...she's the ultimate career politician that is more worried about political fallout then she is about telling the truth.

 

[paperview]

Congratulations. You just identified about just about every top Washington politician.

You're one observant chap, matey!

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm amused by liberals like you and Sarah seeing this as a conservative "invention" when one only has to look at how the Obama White House trotted Susan Rice out that Sunday morning to all those talk shows to know that THEY were the ones who were scrambling to diffuse what you refer to

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? in The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? The insistence of Jay Carney that only one word in the intelligence reports were changed by the White House? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...feel free to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

I don't think so. They said it was an attack carried out by extremist who took advantage of the protest or somehow hijacked the protest. Just because the PR department wanted to put a spin on the story doesn't mean there was any kind of crime or cover up.

You really don't want to admit that they knew early on that there was no "protest", do you, Boo? Just can't bring yourself to admit that the Obama White House decided to mislead the American people for political reasons, can you? That hasn't changed because of this latest "report". It's still there...it still happened...and all spin in the world isn't going to change that! I'm sorry. That's reality.

The statements were always qualified with the fact that the investigation was ongoing and would be looked to to determine exactly what happened. So no they didn't know for sure what happen, at best they had conflicting reports. I also disagree with your characterization that "The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video?" They got it wrong when they said the extremist joined in or hijacked a protest. But they didn't get the extremist part wrong did they?

This really is a simple concept, Boo...

Was there a protest? Yes or no?

If there was no protest then why did the Obama White House continue to push that narrative after they knew that no protest took place?

If there was no cover-up then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails?

Yes there were protest all over the Middle East that week

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Did they or did they not say that they would have to wait for the investigation to be complete before we would know conclusively what happened?

For there to be a cover-up, there needs to be some crime to cover up. You know like Nixon's covering up the activities of CREEP.

 

[Sarah G]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

Of course Benghazi negatively affects any run Hillary makes in 2016, Sarah! ....

THIS is the number one reason why Ghazi truthers are holding onto this like a hungry dog with a steak bone. Once Romney flamed out, ----> HRC, and 2016.

Everyone knows it. You just revealed it As does every Ghazi truther when they get to talking. It's all about stopping Hillary.

Of course it is. They don't like her closest opponent Chris Christie either tho.