McCarthy Admits Benghazi Designed to Flatten Hillary Poll Numbers

[Sallow]

Why did the House Select Committee on Intelligence vindicate Susan Rice 20 months ago and you haven't acknowledged it.

Do you believe that the Benghazi attacks were because of a "youtube video"?

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

From the above link:
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

So based on the BIASED NYT article it would appear "according to people" "WHAT people"???
But in a specific interview he declined to blame the video.

So RATHER then WASTE the political imagery i.e. "blame the video" rather then THE FACT it was a planned terrorist attack and Mr. Khattala had been involved daily in terrorist attacks Rice/Hillary immediately blamed the video!
Because it was less then 7 weeks from Obama's re-election.
You would think that rather then coming out with an immediate reaction "blame the video", why couldn't the WH wait till the FACTS were known?
BECAUSE of these bumper stickers which shows success in the War on Terror!
View attachment 51169

There were protests and violence all over the middle east over a video made by a criminal who never should have posted it as a result of his release.

Yet you folks CONTINUE to deny it had anything to do with what happened in Libya, as if they somehow missed it.

You folks also DIRECTLY link Al Qaeda to the attack although much of the leadership of Al Qaeda was decimated at the time.

And you folks put up a man as a candidate, who while the attack was on going, was criticizing the sitting commander in chief and trying to make the attack an election issue. Something that was unprecedented, entirely

unique and a very dangerous thing to do.

Now? After 7 investigations we have a GOP leader ADMIT, it was ENTIRELY a political ploy.

What do you do? Back to square one.

Amazing.

Perhaps you can share with us the source of this quote? "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters."?

You understand what a non-sequitur is, correct?

Because you just engaged in one.

And it's complete bullshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Explain then why it was so critical for Rice to say on 5 network shows BEFORE the facts were in that it was a video?
Explain why Hillary told The Mother of Benghazi victim said: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame"
Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame

Why was it so important less then 7 weeks from re-election to blame the video? WHY do you suppose??

Why did the House Select Committee on Intelligence vindicate Susan Rice 20 months ago and you haven't acknowledged it.

Do you believe that the Benghazi attacks were because of a "youtube video"?

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

From the above link:
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

So based on the BIASED NYT article it would appear "according to people" "WHAT people"???
But in a specific interview he declined to blame the video.

So RATHER then WASTE the political imagery i.e. "blame the video" rather then THE FACT it was a planned terrorist attack and Mr. Khattala had been involved daily in terrorist attacks Rice/Hillary immediately blamed the video!
Because it was less then 7 weeks from Obama's re-election.
You would think that rather then coming out with an immediate reaction "blame the video", why couldn't the WH wait till the FACTS were known?
BECAUSE of these bumper stickers which shows success in the War on Terror!
View attachment 51169

There were protests and violence all over the middle east over a video made by a criminal who never should have posted it as a condition of his release.

Yet you folks CONTINUE to deny it had anything to do with what happened in Libya, as if they somehow missed it.

You folks also DIRECTLY link Al Qaeda to the attack although much of the leadership of Al Qaeda was decimated at the time.

And you folks put up a man as a candidate, who while the attack was on going, was criticizing the sitting commander in chief and trying to make the attack an election issue. Something that was unprecedented, entirely unique and a very dangerous thing to do.

Now? After 7 investigations we have a GOP leader ADMIT, it was ENTIRELY a political ploy.

What do you do? Back to square one.

Amazing.

At this point you'd have to be almost brain dead to still try and argue that the You Tube video was the cause of the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi but you're here making that argument...aren't you?

 

[Oldstyle]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

 

[Sallow]

Why did the House Select Committee on Intelligence vindicate Susan Rice 20 months ago and you haven't acknowledged it.

Do you believe that the Benghazi attacks were because of a "youtube video"?

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

From the above link:
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

So based on the BIASED NYT article it would appear "according to people" "WHAT people"???
But in a specific interview he declined to blame the video.

So RATHER then WASTE the political imagery i.e. "blame the video" rather then THE FACT it was a planned terrorist attack and Mr. Khattala had been involved daily in terrorist attacks Rice/Hillary immediately blamed the video!
Because it was less then 7 weeks from Obama's re-election.
You would think that rather then coming out with an immediate reaction "blame the video", why couldn't the WH wait till the FACTS were known?
BECAUSE of these bumper stickers which shows success in the War on Terror!
View attachment 51169

There were protests and violence all over the middle east over a video made by a criminal who never should have posted it as a condition of his release.

Yet you folks CONTINUE to deny it had anything to do with what happened in Libya, as if they somehow missed it.

You folks also DIRECTLY link Al Qaeda to the attack although much of the leadership of Al Qaeda was decimated at the time.

And you folks put up a man as a candidate, who while the attack was on going, was criticizing the sitting commander in chief and trying to make the attack an election issue. Something that was unprecedented, entirely unique and a very dangerous thing to do.

Now? After 7 investigations we have a GOP leader ADMIT, it was ENTIRELY a political ploy.

What do you do? Back to square one.

Amazing.

At this point you'd have to be almost brain dead to still try and argue that the You Tube video was the cause of the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi but you're here making that argument...aren't you?

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

That's from the horse's mouth.

 

[Nyvin]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

Well gee if it's so brain dead easy to figure this case out that even Oldstyle can....I wonder why it took 7 congressional investigations and the longest Select Committee in US history and they still don't even have it all put together, hmmmmm??

 

[Sallow]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Priorities..

 

[Oldstyle]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

Well gee if it's so brain dead easy to figure this case out that even Oldstyle can....I wonder why it took 7 congressional investigations and the longest Select Committee in US history and they still don't even have it all put together, hmmmmm??

Cause they're all waiting on the report from the Holder Justice Department on what REALLY happened over there, Nyvin! You know...that FBI investigation that never happened? How do you "put it together" when the people who are supposed to be doing the investigation never do? The truth is...the Obama Administration totally stonewalled Benghazi. Ever hear anything about that FBI investigation? Other than it's "ongoing"?

 

[Oldstyle]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Priorities..

Wow, you're doubling down on stupidity this morning, Sallow! Now you're back arguing the same nonsense that it was GOP budget cuts that caused the lack of security in Libya? Really? Did you not get the memo that argument died a quick death the moment that Charlene Lamb testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with security levels in Benghazi? That the State Department was "satisfied" with security levels there?

 

[Oldstyle]

Somebody needs a cup of coffee this morning! This is too easy...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

hmmm, how about a warrant issued for the deaths of 4,500 Americans based on the lies by George W, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo conservatives?

Yet again the partisan omission of the Democrats who did it arm in arm with them

It's a tossup, is this ^^^ a lie, a half-truth or ignorance? Given the record I lean toward a lie but even Kaz deserves a chance to clarify this post.

The D's did not vote in lock-step on the resolution to use force,

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


with a few exceptions the Republicans did. Thus your comment is at best a half-truth. Writing the D's voted arm in arm (aka in lock-step) with the R's is an attempt to deceive the readers.

Of course maybe you actually believe what you wrote, which would not entirely surprise me. You've never shown the acumen necessary to explore matters which might challenge the biases you hold.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you believe that the Benghazi attacks were because of a "youtube video"?

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

From the above link:
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

So based on the BIASED NYT article it would appear "according to people" "WHAT people"???
But in a specific interview he declined to blame the video.

So RATHER then WASTE the political imagery i.e. "blame the video" rather then THE FACT it was a planned terrorist attack and Mr. Khattala had been involved daily in terrorist attacks Rice/Hillary immediately blamed the video!
Because it was less then 7 weeks from Obama's re-election.
You would think that rather then coming out with an immediate reaction "blame the video", why couldn't the WH wait till the FACTS were known?
BECAUSE of these bumper stickers which shows success in the War on Terror!
View attachment 51169

There were protests and violence all over the middle east over a video made by a criminal who never should have posted it as a condition of his release.

Yet you folks CONTINUE to deny it had anything to do with what happened in Libya, as if they somehow missed it.

You folks also DIRECTLY link Al Qaeda to the attack although much of the leadership of Al Qaeda was decimated at the time.

And you folks put up a man as a candidate, who while the attack was on going, was criticizing the sitting commander in chief and trying to make the attack an election issue. Something that was unprecedented, entirely unique and a very dangerous thing to do.

Now? After 7 investigations we have a GOP leader ADMIT, it was ENTIRELY a political ploy.

What do you do? Back to square one.

Amazing.

At this point you'd have to be almost brain dead to still try and argue that the You Tube video was the cause of the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi but you're here making that argument...aren't you?

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

That's from the horse's mouth.

I'd like to know why this guy admits it and the right says "Nun uhh" as a response

 

[Stephanie]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Priorities..

good grief, are you paid by Hillary? We sure didn't hear any whining over the waste of investigating some low level agent, Valerie Plame for five years, I think it was. so go grab a crying towel

 

[Wry Catcher]

the party of death (progressive/democrat party) comes to Hillary's rescue again. the hell with Mr. Stevens an INNOCENT American civilian who was KILLED because of her and Obama Screw ups

How many more investigations do you need, dingbat?

Stephanie is akin to Charley McCarthy, her fingers move on the keyboard under the control of some alien force.

 

[easyt65]

Well the problem you have now is the fact that the whole thing was a lie. Go live with it.

Your OPINION is as useful as wet toilet paper.

NY Times, Huffington Post, Washington Times, Fox News, MediaMatters.org, CNN, and many more all reported the following:

"CIA officers who testified privately to Congress about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, revealed a disagreement among them about how quickly they could go help the besieged U.S. ambassador and others as well as a standing order for them to avoid violent encounters."

The facts and testimony presented show that these 3 CIA members wanted to IMMEDIATELY respond to the attack on Ambassador Stevens' compound and that their leads told them this was not a good idea, that there was not enough man-power/fire-power to do so, and that they should 'avoid an violent encounter' (for now).

SYMANTICS! 'Don't go'...'wait'...is that a 'Stand Down' order? Was it an 'official' 'Stand Down' Order'? Do you consider that to be a LOCAL 'order' given by the CIA Team Lead there on the ground in Benghazi or is there a possible way to 'pin it onto' Obama?
-- It depends on who you ask...and rabid partisans on both sides will not only interpret it to fit their agenda but will blow it out of proportion to do so...which it has been.

As for me, my experience, what I do, and what I have done, I can say if the situation went up in Benghazi the way it did and the Ambassador's compound was under attack, I have been trained to react the same way the Ex-Navy SEALS did - you respond to save lives. A 'regular' CIA chief without the same training / experience is probably going to think about the risk and the need to wait for back-up. Men with combat experience don't think that way. People are in danger - respond. For these men, there was no time for the Obama administration to ever pass on such an order. It was a spur of the moment call made by the local CIA Team Leader - "Wait...don't go." The PERSONAL CHOICE to ignore such a call and to go was made by the 3 men who eventually died.

I do not blame anyone for such an initial 'stand down' order and do not blame them for the deaths of these 3 men. It was THEIR call, their decision, and what they were trained to do. 'Honor, Service Before Self, Excellence In All We Do'...'Never Leave a Man Behind'...'Semper Fi'. To many these are just words but to those who serve they are creeds to live...and die...by. The 'SMART' thing to do was to 'stand down' and wait for more help (that never came), but that's not what these' guys were trained to do. So, again, I do not blame such an 'order' - which I believe was given - in this case. The fuss being made over it is way out of proportion.

It did not lead to the death of Ambassador Stevens. The 'Monday Morning QB' List of what 'coulda / shoulda / woulda' things that led to this NEEDLESS, PREVENTABLE tragedy is long and proven. Bad decisions were made, for months, leading up to this. It would not be the 1st time a President / staff made wrong decisions that turned out bad...but the attempted cover-up made it worse. 'You' don't always have to be right, to the point of denying mistakes. This administration has and continues to deny they did ANYTHING wrong regarding Benghazi and that this was not preventable. That's B$! I am not completely 'blaming' Obama for what happen, but I do throw the B$ flag on that one.

ACCOUNTABILITY! MAN UP! Admit that this was a preventable tragedy that went south because of some poor calls. I think people would have respected Obama and Hillary more if they would have just admitted that right off the bat and then spoken out STRONGLY and BOLDLY against the TERRORISTS who perpetrated the attack...instead of blaming a video, claiming it wasn't a terrorist attack, arresting the 'creator of the video', then apologizing before the UN by declaring, 'The future must not be left to those who slander the prophet of Islam'. Taking faster action than waiting an entire year to arrest the 'lead terrorist' would have helped, as well.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Priorities..

This link should have its own thread. Just maybe it might have an impact on the ignorance which effects so many on the Benghazi issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

 

[healthmyths]

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.

hmmm, how about a warrant issued for the deaths of 4,500 Americans based on the lies by George W, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo conservatives?

Yet again the partisan omission of the Democrats who did it arm in arm with them

It's a tossup, is this ^^^ a lie, a half-truth or ignorance? Given the record I lean toward a lie but even Kaz deserves a chance to clarify this post.

The D's did not vote in lock-step on the resolution to use force,

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


with a few exceptions the Republicans did. Thus your comment is at best a half-truth. Writing the D's voted arm in arm (aka in lock-step) with the R's is an attempt to deceive the readers.

Of course maybe you actually believe what you wrote, which would not entirely surprise me. You've never shown the acumen necessary to explore matters which might challenge the biases you hold.

Then explain these two issues:
A) Why before GWB everyone including the MSM called for the "Liberation of Iraq" Even legislation passed during Clinton's term.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

Then THESE Democrats Supported the "Liberation of Iraq"..


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

B) But then GWB/GOP won and NOW what was under the MSM the "Liberation of Iraq" It became the "INVASION of Iraq"!

So the idiots like Obama,etc, who never comprehended the role of the military did everything to destroy our military in Iraq.
These quotes certainly did what this Harvard study showed: HELPED the terrorists!

Case in point is the below idiots that made speeches that the MSM broadcast loudly around the world IN SPITE of this Harvard showed :
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's
Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

So because of traitors making statements like the below the conflict was encouraged and prolonged with 3,000 more deaths and $600 billion more then necessary!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

So when it became "politically driven to help the terrorists kill American troops as the above statements have been proven to do, the MSM with their KNOWN
Democrat/liberal biased reporting ALSO nightly showing deaths of US troops... Abu Ghraib done by 11 soldiers NOT the entire military but the MSM/Democrats
knew that the majority of Americans read headlines and constantly pushed our military and the Liberation of IRAQ daily as a "War is Lost" mentality!

 

[healthmyths]

Well the problem you have now is the fact that the whole thing was a lie. Go live with it.

Your OPINION is as useful as wet toilet paper.

NY Times, Huffington Post, Washington Times, Fox News, MediaMatters.org, CNN, and many more all reported the following:

"CIA officers who testified privately to Congress about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, revealed a disagreement among them about how quickly they could go help the besieged U.S. ambassador and others as well as a standing order for them to avoid violent encounters."

The facts and testimony presented show that these 3 CIA members wanted to IMMEDIATELY respond to the attack on Ambassador Stevens' compound and that their leads told them this was not a good idea, that there was not enough man-power/fire-power to do so, and that they should 'avoid an violent encounter' (for now).

SYMANTICS! 'Don't go'...'wait'...is that a 'Stand Down' order? Was it an 'official' 'Stand Down' Order'? Do you consider that to be a LOCAL 'order' given by the CIA Team Lead there on the ground in Benghazi or is there a possible way to 'pin it onto' Obama?
-- It depends on who you ask...and rabid partisans on both sides will not only interpret it to fit their agenda but will blow it out of proportion to do so...which it has been.

As for me, my experience, what I do, and what I have done, I can say if the situation went up in Benghazi the way it did and the Ambassador's compound was under attack, I have been trained to react the same way the Ex-Navy SEALS did - you respond to save lives. A 'regular' CIA chief without the same training / experience is probably going to think about the risk and the need to wait for back-up. Men with combat experience don't think that way. People are in danger - respond. For these men, there was no time for the Obama administration to ever pass on such an order. It was a spur of the moment call made by the local CIA Team Leader - "Wait...don't go." The PERSONAL CHOICE to ignore such a call and to go was made by the 3 men who eventually died.

I do not blame anyone for such an initial 'stand down' order and do not blame them for the deaths of these 3 men. It was THEIR call, their decision, and what they were trained to do. 'Honor, Service Before Self, Excellence In All We Do'...'Never Leave a Man Behind'...'Semper Fi'. To many these are just words but to those who serve they are creeds to live...and die...by. The 'SMART' thing to do was to 'stand down' and wait for more help (that never came), but that's not what these' guys were trained to do. So, again, I do not blame such an 'order' - which I believe was given - in this case. The fuss being made over it is way out of proportion.

It did not lead to the death of Ambassador Stevens. The 'Monday Morning QB' List of what 'coulda / shoulda / woulda' things that led to this NEEDLESS, PREVENTABLE tragedy is long and proven. Bad decisions were made, for months, leading up to this. It would not be the 1st time a President / staff made wrong decisions that turned out bad...but the attempted cover-up made it worse. 'You' don't always have to be right, to the point of denying mistakes. This administration has and continues to deny they did ANYTHING wrong regarding Benghazi and that this was not preventable. That's B$! I am not completely 'blaming' Obama for what happen, but I do throw the B$ flag on that one.

ACCOUNTABILITY! MAN UP! Admit that this was a preventable tragedy that went south because of some poor calls. I think people would have respected Obama and Hillary more if they would have just admitted that right off the bat and then spoken out STRONGLY and BOLDLY against the TERRORISTS who perpetrated the attack...instead of blaming a video, claiming it wasn't a terrorist attack, arresting the 'creator of the video', then apologizing before the UN by declaring, 'The future must not be left to those who slander the prophet of Islam'. Taking faster action than waiting an entire year to arrest the 'lead terrorist' would have helped, as well.

All you said is good. What you missed though was the stark political expediency of declaring the video was the fault!
Remember this all occurred less the 7 weeks before Obama's re-election and ANYTHING the bespeaks of planned, terrorist actions i.e. attacking Benghazi would
have made tremendous difficulties for the general public to believe these bumper stickers that all but declared the 'War on Terrorism" was over!

 

[easyt65]

All you said is good. What you missed though was the stark political expediency of declaring the video was the fault!
Remember this all occurred less the 7 weeks before Obama's re-election and ANYTHING the bespeaks of planned, terrorist actions i.e. attacking Benghazi would
have made tremendous difficulties for the general public to believe these bumper stickers that all but declared the 'War on Terrorism" was over!
View attachment 51179

Didn't mean to 'miss' that point thus the call for 'accountability'. Your point was spot on: After having declared Al Qaeida was on the run and that the War on Terror was over, to have THIS happen - 20 US Embassies simultaneously attacked, 4 overrun, and 4 Americans killed, to include the 1st US Ambassador in over 30 years, put the Obama administration in FULL 'PANIC' / 'DAMAGE CONTROL MODE. Terrorists answered Obama's declaration with a full-on 'F* YOU' right before the election.

 

[Oldstyle]

Does the GOP love the fact that they can use Hillary's total FUBARing of Benghazi against her? Of course they do! Does that mean that it's a "fake scandal"? Of course it doesn't!

The same holds true for the email scandal...

Don't you on the Left get tired of defending Clintons? I know I would. They've become fabulously wealthy playing you people like a piano. Why keep dancing to that same tired tune? Just saying...

 

[Oldstyle]

Clinton was in charge at State...she made the call to have our diplomatic security decreased because the "optics" of that made it look like things were getting better in Libya (even though increased attacks belied that was the case!) and then she decided to mislead the families of those slain men, Congress and the American people about the attack once it happened.

What does it matter? This woman wants to be President. She lies to us. It matters!

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Priorities..

This link should have its own thread. Just maybe it might have an impact on the ignorance which effects so many on the Benghazi issue:

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Jesus, Wry...have a little self respect! Anyone with even a dollop of common sense knows by now that the "GOP cut the budget" trial balloon was shot out of the sky almost as soon as Clinton's people launched it...and yet all this time later people like you and Sallow are STILL pushing that narrative? That's pathetic. Seriously.