"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[JoeB131]

9-11 was years in the planning. It was planned on Clinton's watch.

Funny your so dead set on blaming Bush but forget all about Clinton's none action.

His FBI agent O'Neil was screaming bloody murder and his bosses thought he was nuts.

The buck will always stop at Bush's desk but it should also stop at Clinton's.

It happened on Bush's watch.

Bush got a memo that said, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US".

HIs response- "Well, you've covered your ass". and went fishing.

The planes hit a month later.

 

[Claudette]

Did this memo say how, when or where?

No it didn't because there were no specifics in that memo. Just a warning about something that might happen.

He got the memo and two weeks later we got 9-11. Two weeks.

The whole thing was planned on Clinton's watch and his FBI man O'Neil couldn't get anyone to listen. He knew something was going to happen and his bosses thought he was nuts.

Bush will always get the blame because it happened on his watch but Clinton is as much to blame as Bush.

 

[Camp]

Did this memo say how, when or where?

Somehow I doubt it.

He got the memo and two weeks later we got 9-11. Two weeks.

The whole thing was planned on Clinton's watch and his FBI man O'Neil couldn't get anyone to listen. He knew something was going to happen and his bosses thought he was nuts.

Bush will always get the blame because it happened on his watch but Clinton is as much to blame as Bush.

John P. O'Neil was the FBI expert on al Qaeda that was listened to by the Clinton administration but pushed out of the FBI by the Bush administration. He continued to warn about a coming attack on the WTC when he became the head of WTC security. The Bush administration ignored his warnings, the same way they ignored the warnings of Richard A. Clark, the top counter terrorist expert and adviser to both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The Clinton administration had Bin Laden and al Qaeda on the priority list, the Bush administration but the threats at the bottom of the list.

 

[Claudette]

Did this memo say how, when or where?

Somehow I doubt it.

He got the memo and two weeks later we got 9-11. Two weeks.

The whole thing was planned on Clinton's watch and his FBI man O'Neil couldn't get anyone to listen. He knew something was going to happen and his bosses thought he was nuts.

Bush will always get the blame because it happened on his watch but Clinton is as much to blame as Bush.

John P. O'Neil was the FBI expert on al Qaeda that was listened to by the Clinton administration but pushed out of the FBI by the Bush administration. He continued to warn about a coming attack on the WTC when he became the head of WTC security. The Bush administration ignored his warnings, the same way they ignored the warnings of Richard A. Clark, the top counter terrorist expert and adviser to both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The Clinton administration had Bin Laden and al Qaeda on the priority list, the Bush administration but the threats at the bottom of the list.

The Clinton administraion ignored his warnings as well. O'Neil worked for Bush for eight month. He worked for Clinton for years.

As I said Clinton is as much to blame as Bush. But Bush will always get the majority of the blame because it happened on his watch and you can bet your ass that Clinton is on his knees every night thanking God that the murderers waited that eight months before they attacked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The committee says you are the liars ,AmericanFirst and Listening.

Hey Fakey, Why not take it to the bullring and we can go at it one-on-one. You can show me what a liar I am. What say you ? No ? Thought so..... You gutless coward. Nobody takes you seriously.

Shitbird, the Congress report evidences your lies.

Tough to be you, it must suck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fun to watch Oldstyle and Listening get punted around like footballs.

 

[guno]

Only a total partisan hack would accuse George W. Bush of being "asleep at the switch" (because his Administration didn't see 9/11...a one day sneak attack coming) while giving Barack Obama a pass for totally BEING asleep as ISIS took over huge chunks of the Middle East over a six month period!

Ashcroft Didn t Want To Hear Of Al Qaeda In High Threat Summer Of 2001 Crooks and Liars

BEN-VENISTE: Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Mr. Pickard, on January 21st of this year you met with our staff. Is that correct?

PICKARD: That's correct.

BEN-VENISTE: And according to our staff report, you told them that in June 2001, you met with Attorney General Ashcroft and he told you that you would be the acting FBI director.

PICKARD: That's correct.

BEN-VENISTE: You had some seven or eight meetings with the attorney general?

PICKARD: Somewhere in that number. I have the exact number, but I don't know the total.

BEN-VENISTE: And according to the statement that our staff took from you, you said that you would start each meeting discussing either counterterrorism or counterintelligence. At the same time the threat level was going up and was very high. Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these meetings. Is that correct?

PICKARD: I told him at least on two occasions.

BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff according to this statement that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore. Is that correct?

PICKARD: That is correct.

(h/t Mike)

Atty general asscrack was to busy covering up naked status at the justice department

 

[Oldstyle]

Nobody "slashed the shit" out of the State Department's security budget, you dolt! The Congress didn't give them the full amount of the increase they asked for. Surely even someone with your limited intelligence can grasp the not so subtle difference?

The whole "The GOP slashed the security budget and that's why Ambassador Stevens didn't have adequate security personnel in Libya!" was a short lived and rather pathetic attempt by Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton to divert blame from her policy decisions that turned out to have deadly consequences to someone else. It lasted just about as long as it took for Charlene Lamb to testify under oath that budget concerns had nothing to do with how many security personnel were in Libya and in fact the State Department STILL thought they had the correct amount EVEN AFTER THE ATTACKS ON OUR CONSULATE AND ANNEX WITH THE RESULTING DEATHS OF STEVENS AND THREE OTHER AMERICANS!

You can spew that all day, guy. Frankly, the biggest problem wiht Obama is that he doesn't push back.

You guys slashed security budgets. This is what "government on the cheap" looks like. Rest assured, some rich person was able to get a dressage horse, though.

You keep trying to make the claim that security budgets being "slashed" had something to do with the Benghazi debacle and it's still a laughable claim, Joey because Charlene Lamb testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with staffing levels of security in Libya! She testified that the State Department made the call on the number of security...that they were satisfied with the number that were there...AND THAT THEY STILL FELT THEY HAD THE RIGHT AMOUNT EVEN NOW!!!

The truth...and I KNOW you don't want anything to do with the truth...is that Hillary Clinton's State Department had their heads up their asses when it came to the situation on the ground in Libya in regards to security for our diplomats! They were being told that the situation was getting markedly worse in the months leading up to the attack on the Consulate. Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked that his security detail not be drawn down but State made a decision that they didn't like the "appearance" of too many armed US personnel guarding our facility...that it sent a different "message" than the narrative that they were putting out about Libya which was that things were getting better...not worse.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, the original CIA talking points DID have information in it to the effect that the attack was preceded by a protest, Notfooled! Your problem is that original assessment was walked back by our intelligence community almost immediately. It was obvious even at 24 hours after the attack that there wasn't a protest before the attack.

I want to see the official "walk-back" by the CIA Oldstyle. The protest version of events the morning that Amb Stevens was killed came from the top of the CIA and was put in the 'talking points' that Susan Rice used five days later. So are you accusing the CIA of being part of your imaginary White House false narrative and cover-up. Of course that makes no sense either.

Of course I'm accusing the CIA of being "part" of the revising of the talking points!!!!

What part of this can't you grasp? The CIA sent it's original talking points to the State Department and to the Obama White House and they were told to revise them TWELVE TIMES until the State Department and the White House were satisfied.

 

[Oldstyle]

Fun to watch Oldstyle and Listening get punted around like footballs.

Joey claiming that our Consulate was attacked by "thousands" is me getting punted around like a football? That might very well be the most ignorant statement anyone's made this year.

 

[Claudette]

Save your breath South.

Four dead men mean nothing to these idiots.

The fact that Benghazi didn't have to happen means nothing either.

They can't see the forrest for the trees because they are idiiots.

 

[Oldstyle]

Joey claiming that the attacks were only made possible because of GOP "cuts" when the person in charge for State testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the decision to draw down security personnel is my getting punted around? That's amusing...seriously...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Save your breath South.

Four dead men mean nothing to these idiots. The fact that Benghazi didn't have to happen means nothing either. They can't see the forrest for the trees because they are idiiots.

Claudette's translation: I can't refute the truth, so I will derail the thread with filthy accusations about the posters who are writing the truth here.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'll repeat the same question that nobody from your side has had an answer to...feel free ANYONE to step up and answer it!

If there was no attempt to mislead the American people and Congress about what happened at Benghazi...then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails to "Top Secret" and hide them from Congressional investigators?

THAT ball is in your court, Jakey...catch it and run with it...or run away and hide...your choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joey claiming that the attacks were only made possible because of GOP "cuts" when the person in charge for State testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the decision to draw down security personnel is my getting punted around? That's amusing...seriously...

You got punted again. The Ambassador went to a location where he knew the security was problematic. Yes, the GOP and the Dems both are responsible for not allocating the funds to turn the campus into a formidable fortress.

 

[Oldstyle]

So let me see if I've got this straight, Jakey...Joey claiming that "thousands" attacked our Consulate and that GOP budget cuts were responsible for the missing security is the "truth"? Is that what you're claiming?

 

[Oldstyle]

Joey claiming that the attacks were only made possible because of GOP "cuts" when the person in charge for State testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the decision to draw down security personnel is my getting punted around? That's amusing...seriously...

You got punted again. The Ambassador went to a location where he knew the security was problematic. Yes, the GOP and the Dems both are responsible for not allocating the funds to turn the campus into a formidable fortress.

Then kindly explain why Hillary Clinton's State Department refused to allow the security that was there to remain in place? Why did they pull out that personnel from a situation that was OBVIOUSLY getting worse not better?

 

[Oldstyle]

What's sad about Benghazi is that our State Department seemed to make that call to draw down security levels not based on reality...but on what they wanted reality to be.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're going to have a hard time making the case that budget cuts were the culprit, Jakey when Charlene Lamb stated under oath that budget issues had nothing to do with security staffing levels and that the State Department was not only satisfied with those staffing levels BEFORE the attacks but amazingly felt they were adequate AFTER the attacks!

 

[Camp]

I'll repeat the same question that nobody from your side has had an answer to...feel free ANYONE to step up and answer it!

If there was no attempt to mislead the American people and Congress about what happened at Benghazi...then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails to "Top Secret" and hide them from Congressional investigators?

THAT ball is in your court, Jakey...catch it and run with it...or run away and hide...your choice.

There are many explanations as to why a global response from the US government with data supplied by the CIA would need to be reviewed and adjusted. It is a normal and standard operating process. You choose to speculate that the reasons were malicious and meant to cover up the truth, even though there is no such evidence. The Congressional committees that had far better access to the emails than you, have clearly stated that no cover up or malicious intent to deceive occurred.