"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[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.

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.

LOL..."global response"? What are you babbling about? These were talking points going to the US Congress. Give me a valid "explanation" why 12 revisions were necessary to the original talking points...scrubbing out references to it being an Al Queda affiliated group that was suspected of carrying out the attacks? Victoria Nuland at State seemed to explain it rather succinctly when she complained in emails that opponents would beat them up over this and that was why the talking points needed to change. What is YOUR explanation, Camp?

 

[Siete]

What is YOUR explanation, (Camp)?


There was no Benghazi scandal.

 

[Oldstyle]

What is YOUR explanation, (Camp)?


There was no Benghazi scandal.

Then what was Victoria Nuland soiling her panties over that day, Siete? You don't worry about people beating you up over something that didn't happen...you worry about people beating you up over a policy decision that you got terribly wrong. The reason that the White House and the State Department were calling for all of those revisions to the talking points is that they KNOW they got caught with their pants around their ankles on Benghazi. What you see going on behind the scenes following the attacks in Libya is a full court press to spin this emerging story so it didn't make Barack Obama's stump speech about Al Queda being "on the run" an election year punch line.

 

[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.

LOL..."global response"? What are you babbling about? These were talking points going to the US Congress. Give me a valid "explanation" why 12 revisions were necessary to the original talking points...scrubbing out references to it being an Al Queda affiliated group that was suspected of carrying out the attacks? Victoria Nuland at State seemed to explain it rather succinctly when she complained in emails that opponents would beat them up over this and that was why the talking points needed to change. What is YOUR explanation, Camp?

Well, for one thing, Ansar al Sharia were affiliated with al Qaeda in only the vaguest terms if at all. It was only recently that the group made operational connections to Ansar al Sharia Tunisia and the transfer of several al Qaeda connected individuals to the Benghazi faction which gave the Benghazi faction actual possible al Qaeda operational affiliation. Any statement that Ansar al Sharia had operational affiliation to al Qaeda would have been inaccurate at best and given the group undeserved status to be used for renewed recruitment to a basically defunct group attempting to rebuild through alliances with other jihadist groups. A wrongly worded comment may have also impacted investigation and retaliation processes.

 

[Oldstyle]

And over at State...Hillary's people...like Victoria Nuland...were desperately trying to make sure that it would be blamed on something OTHER than a series of policy decisions that were naive at best and came from Hillary Clinton's desk.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. No one ever really believed there was a scandal.

 

[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.

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.

LOL..."global response"? What are you babbling about? These were talking points going to the US Congress. Give me a valid "explanation" why 12 revisions were necessary to the original talking points...scrubbing out references to it being an Al Queda affiliated group that was suspected of carrying out the attacks? Victoria Nuland at State seemed to explain it rather succinctly when she complained in emails that opponents would beat them up over this and that was why the talking points needed to change. What is YOUR explanation, Camp?

Well, for one thing, Ansar al Sharia were affiliated with al Qaeda in only the vaguest terms if at all. It was only recently that the group made operational connections to Ansar al Sharia Tunisia and the transfer of several al Qaeda connected individuals to the Benghazi faction which gave the Benghazi faction actual possible al Qaeda operational affiliation. Any statement that Ansar al Sharia had operational affiliation to al Qaeda would have been inaccurate at best and given the group undeserved status to be used for renewed recruitment to a basically defunct group attempting to rebuild through alliances with other jihadist groups. A wrongly worded comment may have also impacted investigation and retaliation processes.

Ah, so the Obama White House misled Congress to keep a militant group from recruiting in Libya? That's what you're going with, Camp?

With all due respect...I would make the point that the LAST thing on Victoria Nuland's mind that day was recruiting by militants in Libya or impacting any investigation. She was freaking out because a policy that came from her boss Hillary's desk had just caused the death of a US Ambassador and three other Americans.

 

[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.

LOL..."global response"? What are you babbling about? These were talking points going to the US Congress. Give me a valid "explanation" why 12 revisions were necessary to the original talking points...scrubbing out references to it being an Al Queda affiliated group that was suspected of carrying out the attacks? Victoria Nuland at State seemed to explain it rather succinctly when she complained in emails that opponents would beat them up over this and that was why the talking points needed to change. What is YOUR explanation, Camp?

Well, for one thing, Ansar al Sharia were affiliated with al Qaeda in only the vaguest terms if at all. It was only recently that the group made operational connections to Ansar al Sharia Tunisia and the transfer of several al Qaeda connected individuals to the Benghazi faction which gave the Benghazi faction actual possible al Qaeda operational affiliation. Any statement that Ansar al Sharia had operational affiliation to al Qaeda would have been inaccurate at best and given the group undeserved status to be used for renewed recruitment to a basically defunct group attempting to rebuild through alliances with other jihadist groups. A wrongly worded comment may have also impacted investigation and retaliation processes.

Ah, so the Obama White House misled Congress to keep a militant group from recruiting in Libya? That's what you're going with, Camp?

With all due respect...I would make the point that the LAST thing on Victoria Nuland's mind that day was recruiting by militants in Libya or impacting any investigation. She was freaking out because a policy that came from her boss Hillary's desk had just caused the death of a US Ambassador and three other Americans.

I gave an alternative explanation as per your persistent demand for an answer to a question you asked. The speculative explanation I gave has as much validity as your speculative opinion. The main difference between yours and mine is that yours has been rejected by all the committees that have investigated your speculative conspiracy theory. The committee that is the topic of this thread has specifically rejected and debunked your assertions and speculation.

 

[koshergrl]

I love the retards who think that saying "there was no scandal" means there is no scandal.

Educate yourself, there IS a scandal. What you are trying, in your pathetically ignorant way, to argue is that there is no REASON for a scandal.

"scandal

Houghton Mifflin
n.noun
A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society."

The incident disgraced the presidency, H. Clinton, and offended the moral sensibility of Americans. There is a scandal.

Now you may argue that there's no valid REASON for the scandal, but you won't, because you're functionally illiterate retards.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Never was any scandal - just an attempt to create an illusion for political gain.

Gee, we've NEVER seen anything like THAT before, huh?

 

[koshergrl]

Er..yes, there was a scandal. Scandal is when people are outraged.

Were people outraged?

Why yes they were.

Read the definition again, dolt, and stop telling yourself you're a smart guy, because you really aren't. You shouldn't be dithering here, you should be reading some real literature and enhancing your vocabulary.

 

[BlindBoo]

What is YOUR explanation, (Camp)?


There was no Benghazi scandal.

Exactly. There was a tragedy that the GOP tried to take advantage of.

 

[Camp]

I love the retards who think that saying "there was no scandal" means there is no scandal.

Educate yourself, there IS a scandal. What you are trying, in your pathetically ignorant way, to argue is that there is no REASON for a scandal.

"scandal

Houghton Mifflin
n.noun
A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society."

The incident disgraced the presidency, H. Clinton, and offended the moral sensibility of Americans. There is a scandal.

Now you may argue that there's no valid REASON for the scandal, but you won't, because you're functionally illiterate retards.

There was no scandal according to your definition. The incident did not disgrace the presidency or H. Clinton. That is what the Benghazi dupes and right wing zealots tried to do. It didn't work. The report by the Republican controlled committee along with other investigations have proved that it was a tragedy that was maliciously used to attempt to create a scandal.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, the tragedy was a result of callous mismanagement, dishonesty, and the cynical disregard of life embodied in our administration...and that is why it's a scandal.

 

[nodoginnafight]

LOL - scandal doesn't equate to "outrage."
What kind of idiot would say that?

 

[koshergrl]

I love the retards who think that saying "there was no scandal" means there is no scandal.

Educate yourself, there IS a scandal. What you are trying, in your pathetically ignorant way, to argue is that there is no REASON for a scandal.

"scandal

Houghton Mifflin
n.noun
A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society."

The incident disgraced the presidency, H. Clinton, and offended the moral sensibility of Americans. There is a scandal.

Now you may argue that there's no valid REASON for the scandal, but you won't, because you're functionally illiterate retards.

There was no scandal according to your definition. The incident did not disgrace the presidency or H. Clinton. That is what the Benghazi dupes and right wing zealots tried to do. It didn't work. The report by the Republican controlled committee along with other investigations have proved that it was a tragedy that was maliciously used to attempt to create a scandal.

I'm sure you don't find it scandalous.

But to normal humans, it is. Disgusting progressives can't be expected to care.

 

[koshergrl]

LOL - scandal doesn't equate to "outrage."
What kind of idiot would say that?

Wow even when I put it up there for you, you still don't understand.

"

1. scandal
   
   Houghton Mifflin
   • n.noun
     1. A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society.
        
        a drug scandal that forced the mayor's resignation.
        
        
     2. A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage.
        
        a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal.
        
        
     3. Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace.
        
        
     4. Talk that is damaging to one's character; malicious gossip."

 

[koshergrl]

By Camp's definition, the "it's just a bunch of meanies being malicious" one, it's still a scandal.

As I said. You don't have any idea what the word "scandal" means. And you still don't. You probably never would. You should return to 4th grade, and this time, don't do drugs during class.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So what's gonna be the new "scandal" ????

Every time someone farts in Washington, hacks are lining up to call it "Gasgate"

what a bunch of idiots

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you for recognizing what the word "scandal" means. Hopefully, we are making progress. I'm a little disappointed that the NoTeaParty moron isn't here to realize what an idiot he is, but I think probably..he already knows anyway.