McCarthy Admits Benghazi Designed to Flatten Hillary Poll Numbers

[Sallow]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

Reposted for those who fail to follow the thread:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/w...egin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?_r=0


The video was one of the reasons listed by the leader of the attacks. That's from the horse's mouth.

Every one of the talking points, which came from the CIA to the state department turned out to be a fairly accurate assessment of what took place.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Reagan and Bush, Democrats blamed insurgents and terrorists.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Clinton (Bill) and Obama Republicans blamed the American administrations.

And now? They've admitted that these "investigations" were entirely meant to discredit their political opponents.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

What does who was who doing to who shot John have to do with my response to another? Even YOU chimed in on another post asking/pretending you had no knowledge of a conflict in Libya when Stevens, et al, were killed! I responded to the other poster, and you piggyback it and raise asinine and utterly stupid off topic questions! The conflict then and there was well publicized!

Stephens himself informed State in June 2012 of an increase in attacks in Libya, “targeting international organizations and foreign interests.” He noted an attack that month on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where a homemade bomb ripped a hole in a security wall."
< Ambassador Stevens warned of Islamic extremism before Benghazi consulate attack >

Cowboy Stevens could have left the US Mission any time and he also turned down security assistance twice before 9/11/2012. Those were HIS decisions and he still owns them, dead or not!

Now go formulate your feces, dipstick, and quit taking out your brain and playing with it!

If this was all on Stevens then why have obama and HR Haldeman Clinton been so busy deflecting and covering up and lying and obfuscating, etc.?

Where did I state it was all about the Cowboy? I didn't...period!

Right here...

< Ambassador Stevens warned of Islamic extremism before Benghazi consulate attack >

Cowboy Stevens could have left the US Mission any time and he also turned down security assistance twice before 9/11/2012. Those were HIS decisions and he still owns them, dead or not!

You isolate one statement from the full context of the whole and say lookie, lookie! IDIOT! Wander off topic much, fool?

But it's the very one comment you denied!

con·text
ˈkäntekst/
noun
noun: context; plural noun: contexts
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
"the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending"
synonyms: circumstances, conditions, factors, state of affairs, situation, background, scene, settingMore
"the wider historical context"
frame of reference, contextual relationship;
text, subject, theme, topic
"a quote taken out of context"

• the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
  "word processing is affected by the context in which words appear"
  < Google.com >

You are an IDIOT and a FOOL! Playtime is over. Get your ass back in the classroom, kid!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

See? Thats the part I'm talking about...the part in bold you nor the eleventy investigations wasnt able to prove. Its simple, want to go after her...just prove it.

But thats the part they cant do...prove it.

Didn't you watch the debate? It was an admission of guilt on the level of the end of a Perry Mason court case.
How do you reconcile the acknowledgment of terrorism as the cause before spending the next two weeks blaming a video and making the terrorism acknowledgment after those two weeks?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

Reposted for those who fail to follow the thread:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/w...egin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?_r=0


The video was one of the reasons listed by the leader of the attacks. That's from the horse's mouth.

Every one of the talking points, which came from the CIA to the state department turned out to be a fairly accurate assessment of what took place.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Reagan and Bush, Democrats blamed insurgents and terrorists.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Clinton (Bill) and Obama Republicans blamed the American administrations.

And now? They've admitted that these "investigations" were entirely meant to discredit their political opponents.

There is a major distinction between a spontaneous riot and a coordinated terror attack.
It doesn't matter what a terrorist uses as an excuse for an attack in addition to attacking for its own sake.
It's what obama, et al, said was solely to blame (a spontaneous response to a video) before attempting to backtrack when it became obvious it was terrorism.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If this was all on Stevens then why have obama and HR Haldeman Clinton been so busy deflecting and covering up and lying and obfuscating, etc.?

Where did I state it was all about the Cowboy? I didn't...period!

Right here...

< Ambassador Stevens warned of Islamic extremism before Benghazi consulate attack >

Cowboy Stevens could have left the US Mission any time and he also turned down security assistance twice before 9/11/2012. Those were HIS decisions and he still owns them, dead or not!

You isolate one statement from the full context of the whole and say lookie, lookie! IDIOT! Wander off topic much, fool?

But it's the very one comment you denied!

con·text
ˈkäntekst/
noun
noun: context; plural noun: contexts
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
"the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending"
synonyms: circumstances, conditions, factors, state of affairs, situation, background, scene, settingMore
"the wider historical context"
frame of reference, contextual relationship;
text, subject, theme, topic
"a quote taken out of context"

• the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
  "word processing is affected by the context in which words appear"
  < Google.com >

You are an IDIOT and a FOOL! Playtime is over. Get your ass back in the classroom, kid!

Can't deal with truth, eh?

 

[HenryBHough]

Democrats liked Benghazi so much their (former) New Messian wants to bring the activists who carried it off to live in a house next to YOU!

Unfortunately there are no exclusively Democrat neighborhoods.

Not yet.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

Reposted for those who fail to follow the thread:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/w...egin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?_r=0


The video was one of the reasons listed by the leader of the attacks. That's from the horse's mouth.

Every one of the talking points, which came from the CIA to the state department turned out to be a fairly accurate assessment of what took place.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Reagan and Bush, Democrats blamed insurgents and terrorists.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Clinton (Bill) and Obama Republicans blamed the American administrations.

And now? They've admitted that these "investigations" were entirely meant to discredit their political opponents.

Here comes the NEW cover up excuse...wait for it

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Can't deal with truth, eh?

You're projecting, fool!

 

[Sallow]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

Reposted for those who fail to follow the thread:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/w...egin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?_r=0


The video was one of the reasons listed by the leader of the attacks. That's from the horse's mouth.

Every one of the talking points, which came from the CIA to the state department turned out to be a fairly accurate assessment of what took place.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Reagan and Bush, Democrats blamed insurgents and terrorists.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Clinton (Bill) and Obama Republicans blamed the American administrations.

And now? They've admitted that these "investigations" were entirely meant to discredit their political opponents.

There is a major distinction between a spontaneous riot and a coordinated terror attack.
It doesn't matter what a terrorist uses as an excuse for an attack in addition to attacking for its own sake.
It's what obama, et al, said was solely to blame (a spontaneous response to a video) before attempting to backtrack when it became obvious it was terrorism.

7 Investigations cleared the Obama administration.

That was 6 MORE investigations that congress held on this than the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Nyvin]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

Reposted for those who fail to follow the thread:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/w...egin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?_r=0


The video was one of the reasons listed by the leader of the attacks. That's from the horse's mouth.

Every one of the talking points, which came from the CIA to the state department turned out to be a fairly accurate assessment of what took place.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Reagan and Bush, Democrats blamed insurgents and terrorists.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Clinton (Bill) and Obama Republicans blamed the American administrations.

And now? They've admitted that these "investigations" were entirely meant to discredit their political opponents.

There is a major distinction between a spontaneous riot and a coordinated terror attack.
It doesn't matter what a terrorist uses as an excuse for an attack in addition to attacking for its own sake.
It's what obama, et al, said was solely to blame (a spontaneous response to a video) before attempting to backtrack when it became obvious it was terrorism.

7 Investigations cleared the Obama administration.

That was 6 MORE investigations that congress held on this than the 9/11 attacks.

Not to mention the Benghazi Select Committee is the longest congressional investigation in US history

 

[chikenwing]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

So what Rice blubber out about a video was the truth?? Obama saying the same was factual,it was a spontaneous demonstration over a video that was view just a few hundred time before the attack?

The only thing to :see is how low will Clinton ass sucker go

 

[kaz]

So $20 Million spent on a select committee investigation into the death of an Ambassador and three others serving their country, as the result of a sitting President, Secretary of State, and their minions claiming it was the result of a video and not gross incompetence, due to their failure, for political reasons, to admit that the attack was a well planned terrorist operation, has someone's panties in a bunch? Come on, if they had simply told the truth in the first place would this have resulted in a $20 million dollar investigation? I think not, but this administration chose to lie, and when one lies there is a price to be paid.Then again would we have known, courtesy of the FOIA, that the Secretary of State was conducting high level and top secret state business on non approved non secure private server, that she owned, in violation of federal protocol? Count the lies, contradictions, and misstatements, then tell me what you have, the reincarnation of the plumbers and one Richard M Nixon. But that is OK provided its a democrat, right?

Republicans own investigations have vindicated those involved, so something is clearly wrong with your findings. The $20 million investigation was a front to take down a legitimate candidate for office and if that isn't a crime it should be.

The lie that was told and retold by the administration until long after everyone knew otherwise that they thought it was a spontaneous attack alone easily justified the cost of the investigation. Obama and Rice both clearly lied whatever you want to call it, they both knew it wasn't. If Republicans knowingly lied, you'd be screaming for their heads, not arguing that somehow it wasn't illegal

But it never was a legitimate investigation. It was a charade and a fraud used to discredit a legitimate candidate for office.

It certainly was a legit investigation. Four Americans were killed and it was important enough for those who were indirectly responsible to coverup their failure. That's a warrant for an investigation if ever there was one.

1. The House Select Committee on Intelligence found no wrongdoing in the Benghazi scandal
2. Seven other investigations have come up with nothing
3. 50 hearings and nothing was uncovered
4. The fact that you don't care one bit about the evidence or the money spent illegally merely proves your lack of integrity for the truth or respect for our country.

We know Obama and Rice lied, both said it was a spontaneous attack long after everyone clearly knew otherwise

 

[chikenwing]

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

Reposted for those who fail to follow the thread:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/w...egin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?_r=0


The video was one of the reasons listed by the leader of the attacks. That's from the horse's mouth.

Every one of the talking points, which came from the CIA to the state department turned out to be a fairly accurate assessment of what took place.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Reagan and Bush, Democrats blamed insurgents and terrorists.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Clinton (Bill) and Obama Republicans blamed the American administrations.

And now? They've admitted that these "investigations" were entirely meant to discredit their political opponents.

There is a major distinction between a spontaneous riot and a coordinated terror attack.
It doesn't matter what a terrorist uses as an excuse for an attack in addition to attacking for its own sake.
It's what obama, et al, said was solely to blame (a spontaneous response to a video) before attempting to backtrack when it became obvious it was terrorism.

7 Investigations cleared the Obama administration.

That was 6 MORE investigations that congress held on this than the 9/11 attacks.

Not to mention the Benghazi Select Committee is the longest congressional investigation in US history

BFD
Why did Susan Rice lie?

 

[nuhuh]

Creating a coverup and then attempting to coverup the coverup exacerbates the failure exponentially. Involving potential criminal activity in the process of the coverups takes the failure of duty to an extreme level.

See? You keep saying this part but havent and cant show what the cover up was. Neither can the Republicans investigating show it happened either.

Blaming a video for an alleged spontaneous event and then once it was realized that it in fact was a coordinated attack there was an attempt to backtrack and say terrorism was blamed all along. And Candy Crowley helped on the second coverup. And no media pounded that obvious error.
We're talking about two blatant coverups, the second to attempt to coverup the first coverup.

Reposted for those who fail to follow the thread:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/w...egin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?_r=0


The video was one of the reasons listed by the leader of the attacks. That's from the horse's mouth.

Every one of the talking points, which came from the CIA to the state department turned out to be a fairly accurate assessment of what took place.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Reagan and Bush, Democrats blamed insurgents and terrorists.

When consulates and embassies were attacked on Clinton (Bill) and Obama Republicans blamed the American administrations.

And now? They've admitted that these "investigations" were entirely meant to discredit their political opponents.

There is a major distinction between a spontaneous riot and a coordinated terror attack.
It doesn't matter what a terrorist uses as an excuse for an attack in addition to attacking for its own sake.
It's what obama, et al, said was solely to blame (a spontaneous response to a video) before attempting to backtrack when it became obvious it was terrorism.

7 Investigations cleared the Obama administration.

That was 6 MORE investigations that congress held on this than the 9/11 attacks.

Absolutely correct and it should be pointed out that if Republicans had wasted half the energy fixing the economy and passing legislation that was beneficial to the people they would own Washington right now instead of being caught in the midst of a scandal of their own making.

 

[kaz]

So $20 Million spent on a select committee investigation into the death of an Ambassador and three others serving their country, as the result of a sitting President, Secretary of State, and their minions claiming it was the result of a video and not gross incompetence, due to their failure, for political reasons, to admit that the attack was a well planned terrorist operation, has someone's panties in a bunch? Come on, if they had simply told the truth in the first place would this have resulted in a $20 million dollar investigation? I think not, but this administration chose to lie, and when one lies there is a price to be paid.Then again would we have known, courtesy of the FOIA, that the Secretary of State was conducting high level and top secret state business on non approved non secure private server, that she owned, in violation of federal protocol? Count the lies, contradictions, and misstatements, then tell me what you have, the reincarnation of the plumbers and one Richard M Nixon. But that is OK provided its a democrat, right?

Republicans own investigations have vindicated those involved, so something is clearly wrong with your findings. The $20 million investigation was a front to take down a legitimate candidate for office and if that isn't a crime it should be.

The lie that was told and retold by the administration until long after everyone knew otherwise that they thought it was a spontaneous attack alone easily justified the cost of the investigation. Obama and Rice both clearly lied whatever you want to call it, they both knew it wasn't. If Republicans knowingly lied, you'd be screaming for their heads, not arguing that somehow it wasn't illegal

But it never was a legitimate investigation. It was a charade and a fraud used to discredit a legitimate candidate for office.

What was a charade and a fraud? Obama obstructed and got away with it, it was his choice to not come clean

You really need to watch the video in the OP and then get with what we are discussing - the fact that Benghazi was a ruse to bring down a legitimate candidate.

I did watch the video, Holmes. He didn't say any of that. He said he wanted it known what she did

 

[nuhuh]

Republicans own investigations have vindicated those involved, so something is clearly wrong with your findings. The $20 million investigation was a front to take down a legitimate candidate for office and if that isn't a crime it should be.

The lie that was told and retold by the administration until long after everyone knew otherwise that they thought it was a spontaneous attack alone easily justified the cost of the investigation. Obama and Rice both clearly lied whatever you want to call it, they both knew it wasn't. If Republicans knowingly lied, you'd be screaming for their heads, not arguing that somehow it wasn't illegal

But it never was a legitimate investigation. It was a charade and a fraud used to discredit a legitimate candidate for office.

It certainly was a legit investigation. Four Americans were killed and it was important enough for those who were indirectly responsible to coverup their failure. That's a warrant for an investigation if ever there was one.

1. The House Select Committee on Intelligence found no wrongdoing in the Benghazi scandal
2. Seven other investigations have come up with nothing
3. 50 hearings and nothing was uncovered
4. The fact that you don't care one bit about the evidence or the money spent illegally merely proves your lack of integrity for the truth or respect for our country.

We know Obama and Rice lied, both said it was a spontaneous attack long after everyone clearly knew otherwise

Yeah? then why did the Republican Select Committee on Intelligence vindicate them?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Democrats liked Benghazi so much their (former) New Messian wants to bring the activists who carried it off to live in a house next to YOU!

Unfortunately there are no exclusively Democrat neighborhoods.

Not yet.

You need to visit my neighborhood. All hardcore white lefties right next to a major college campus. So I'm confident I won't have to deal with any muslim refugees coming here. They even see to it that the town is mostly clear of any blacks. Because they so embrace diversity.

 

[chikenwing]

I missed the part were you talked about the 26 embassy personnel that died under Bush. Do you miss them too? Weren't they "good"?

Bush never lied about the attacks, never jid while they occurred, never doctored CIA reports about them to remove all references to 'terrorism', never conspired to lie to the American people about them, never declared to the world after those deaths that it was all over fictional protests that occurred because 'America was bad' and that 'The world must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam'!

Of course he did.

His administration told the American public that Al Qaeda had colluded with the Iraqi government to launch the 9/11 terrorist attack. He then went on to say that the Iraqis were in the process of building nuclear weapons to attack the United States, and that they were allied with Iran and North Korea in that endeavor.

They told some real whoppers.

What you just posted was an early yapping point from dip shits like yourself,it has since been proven a lie try again.

Not one of you Clinton ass sucker have explained why Rice said what she did on all those Sunday morning shows,and why Obama said the same thing on late night TV,Which has been proven to be a lie,why would they lie like that,come on man up and expalin why they would lie like that,what would be a logical reason for such bull shittery??!!

Where the fuck have you been? The House Select Committee on Intelligence vindicated Susan Rice 20 months ago. You really should read more.

So she didn't lie? ya you run with that,guess the word integrity mean nothing to people like yourself.
Don't care who gave her a pass,I watched her lie on all the sunday news shows she was on.

 

[kaz]

The lie that was told and retold by the administration until long after everyone knew otherwise that they thought it was a spontaneous attack alone easily justified the cost of the investigation. Obama and Rice both clearly lied whatever you want to call it, they both knew it wasn't. If Republicans knowingly lied, you'd be screaming for their heads, not arguing that somehow it wasn't illegal

But it never was a legitimate investigation. It was a charade and a fraud used to discredit a legitimate candidate for office.

It certainly was a legit investigation. Four Americans were killed and it was important enough for those who were indirectly responsible to coverup their failure. That's a warrant for an investigation if ever there was one.

1. The House Select Committee on Intelligence found no wrongdoing in the Benghazi scandal
2. Seven other investigations have come up with nothing
3. 50 hearings and nothing was uncovered
4. The fact that you don't care one bit about the evidence or the money spent illegally merely proves your lack of integrity for the truth or respect for our country.

We know Obama and Rice lied, both said it was a spontaneous attack long after everyone clearly knew otherwise

Yeah? then why did the Republican Select Committee on Intelligence vindicate them?

Because they couched their wording in enough qualifications they weren't directly a lie. Obviously at that point it was not a spontaneous attack, there is no possible way they did not know it almost a week later when they were still saying it was

 

[Sallow]

I missed the part were you talked about the 26 embassy personnel that died under Bush. Do you miss them too? Weren't they "good"?

Bush never lied about the attacks, never jid while they occurred, never doctored CIA reports about them to remove all references to 'terrorism', never conspired to lie to the American people about them, never declared to the world after those deaths that it was all over fictional protests that occurred because 'America was bad' and that 'The world must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam'!

Of course he did.

His administration told the American public that Al Qaeda had colluded with the Iraqi government to launch the 9/11 terrorist attack. He then went on to say that the Iraqis were in the process of building nuclear weapons to attack the United States, and that they were allied with Iran and North Korea in that endeavor.

They told some real whoppers.

What you just posted was an early yapping point from dip shits like yourself,it has since been proven a lie try again.

Not one of you Clinton ass sucker have explained why Rice said what she did on all those Sunday morning shows,and why Obama said the same thing on late night TV,Which has been proven to be a lie,why would they lie like that,come on man up and expalin why they would lie like that,what would be a logical reason for such bull shittery??!!

Where the fuck have you been? The House Select Committee on Intelligence vindicated Susan Rice 20 months ago. You really should read more.

So she didn't lie? ya you run with that,guess the word integrity mean nothing to people like yourself.
Don't care who gave her a pass,I watched her lie on all the sunday news shows she was on.

She didn't lie at all.

And the top Republican JUST ADMITTED these investigations are entirely POLITICAL.