"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Oldstyle]

OS 10329159

The fact is...the White House kept something that was in the original talking points that turned out to be completely wrong because it fit the narrative that they were going to put out to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi.

Why did Obama refer to it as an act of terror on the very next day after the attack? Why did Susan Rice go on TV and tell Americans that extremists came with heavy weapons to attack the consulate? She did not say that protesters came with heavy weapons. She said extremists came with heavy weapons. By mentioning 'extremists bringing heavy weapons' on every show that Susan Rice went on, it totally debunks your CT about a 'narrative to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi'. To diffuse the fallout, as you wish were true. they would have had to deny that it was an act of terror and denied that extremists attacked the consulate and CIA annex with heavy weapons. But they didn't. So your CT is as goofy as ever.

And after weeks of complaining about the White House 'changing the talking points 12 times' now you are arguing that they kept the CIA talking points the same and their dastardly deed is now 'not changing' what the CIA assessed in the first few days after the attack. How do you live with yourself making an argument today that is opposite the argument you made yesterday?

Obama did not refer to the Benghazi Attacks as a terrorist attack within 24 hours, he referred TO terrorist attacks and said he was against 'em. Susan Rice made the rounds on the Sunday Political circuit and consistently blamed the attacks on a riot resulting from a Youtube video. A riot in which she noted that RPGs were present in the resultant attack.

All you're trying to do is to rationalize the facts as a means to revise the history, wherein the State Department and the Peasantpimp of the Union States took action, abusing their authority and the public trust, AT BEST: TO CONCEAL THEIR FAILURES.

But in truth, they were complicit in the attack... which served as a means to cover up the Executive Branch's efforts which will soon be shown to have been the foundational actions taken in the creation of that which we know today as: ISIS. OKA: Treason on a scale which no American could have ever believed to be possible.

In speaking of the attack in Benghazi, Obama said ...

"And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."​

... you have to twist your own comprehension abilities into a tortured contortion in order to convince yourself Obama wasn't speaking of the attack in Benghazi when he said, "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."

I would say you were correct in that assumption, Faun except for Obama's refusal to call it a terror attack over the next several weeks! When you won't label it a terror attack AFTER you've made THAT speech then one has to look at the statement and realize that Obama was speaking "generally" about terror and not specifically about Benghazi. You can't refuse to call it a terror attack and then go back weeks later and say that you DID call it a terror attack.

It's in context. He called it a terror attack the very next morning. When our intelligence community pushed the video protests after that, the administration echoed the intelligence. When the CIA reassessed the motive behind the attack, the administration relayed that to the public. None of which alters the context of Obama's initial statement in the Rose Garden.

If he called it a terror attack the day after...then why did he and numerous others in his Administration steadfastly refuse to call it a terror attack for the next week and a half, Faun?

When did the intelligence community "push" the YouTube video protest angle? That was what the original assessment was right after the attacks but within 24 hours the intelligence community was quite sure that there was no protest and had informed the White House of just that. You've got Susan Rice going out on all of those talk shows a week after the attack and stating that their best information was that it was a protest over a video that escalated into an attack when they KNEW that our intelligence community no longer held that view and hadn't for quite some time!

 

[Antares]

If there really was no Benghazi scandal...then kindly explain why it is that four Americans are dead. Duh?

Because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Stevens made the call. Had they stayed at the embassy, 400 miles away, they'd have been fine.

Shit happens, time to grow up.

Ah, yes the "shit happens" excuse!
If we had a Secretary of State who cared as much about the safety of our diplomats as she did about appearances then our diplomats security would not have been entrusted to Libyan militias instead of our own people. But Hillary didn't want the Libyans to think we didn't trust them so we didn't go that way. Time for Clinton to grow up and take responsibility for her actions.

It happened on her watch but Stevens made the call and twice turned down extra security. He was also well known for jogging all by himself around town. She's wasn't his babysitter and it wasn't her fault. It's a dangerous job and he played it fast and loose. And it was Stevens who didn't want them to think we lacked faith, not Clinton.

What a lying sack of shit you are.

Stevens did not have the authority to ask for or turn down the security.

 

[Antares]

I hate to disappoint you, Dottie but with Hillary Clinton running for President this is far from "case closed". If you wanted THAT you should have told Barry and Hillary to come clean years ago. They stonewalled the investigations and drew the process out...so now it's going to be fresh in everyone's mind that A) Hillary's policies led to the death of those four men and B) she lied about how it all went down.

The only people who "care" about Benghazi are the people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place.

The kind of people who go nutso about four deaths in LIbya, but say, "Shit happens" about 5000 deaths in Iraq or 3000 deaths at the WTC.

Sorry Joe, no.

We DO however wish you had been in the WTC instead of some of the god people who actually were.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well kids, Trey Gowdy has opened hearings and over the next few months the Left will begin to produce evidence of the cover-up of the treason intrinsic to Benghazi.

As it always is, it will be the cover-up that proves the high-crime and that will be the end of our lame duck Peasentpimp of the Union States and his communist cult.

That will be the ninth investigation into Benghazi. How many you reckon it's gonna take for you to accept reality? 10? 20? 30??

However many it takes to get to the truth. This would have been over with after the FIRST investigation if the Obama White House had been as "transparent" as they promised they would be! When you need Freedom of Information law suits to get documents that the White House has deliberately hidden from Congress then it's going to be a long process. Blaming the investigators is rather amusing since they simply wanted to get answers. It's the White House that's been delaying this process.

Funny ... that's what Birthers sound like.

I'm tellin' ya ... Dreamers = the new Birthers

You're the one who can't answer simple questions like why the White House felt the need to reclassify Ben Rhodes emails to "Top Secret" and hide them from Congressional investigators for over a year, Faun. You want to make me out as a delusional version of a "Birther"? I've never once stated that I believed Barack Obama was not born in a hospital in Honolulu. My reasons for not thinking he should be President lie solely in his competence...not in whether or not he was born in the US.

What the Obama White House DID after the Benghazi attacks isn't some wild conjecture on my part. What they did is completely illustrated by their own emails. They pressured the intelligence community to sanitize the original talking points by removing references to Al Queda. The White House then retained the original and completely wrong assessment by the intelligence community that the attacks followed a protest over the video and pushed that version of events for as long as they possibly could. Jay Carney lied to the Press Corps about what they had done. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all lied to the families of the dead men when their bodies came home telling them that they would get the man responsible for the video that caused those deaths. Ben Rhodes then sent Susan Rice out to all those Sunday morning talk shows to mislead the American people...once again making the point that the attacks followed a protest.

None of that is conjecture on my part. That's what occurred. If you're a Hillary Clinton supporter then you're going to have to deal with her responsibility for policy before the deaths and her part in the coverup that took place after. They chose to dance the dance...now it's time to pay the fiddler!

 

[Oldstyle]

I hate to disappoint you, Dottie but with Hillary Clinton running for President this is far from "case closed". If you wanted THAT you should have told Barry and Hillary to come clean years ago. They stonewalled the investigations and drew the process out...so now it's going to be fresh in everyone's mind that A) Hillary's policies led to the death of those four men and B) she lied about how it all went down.

The only people who "care" about Benghazi are the people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place.

The kind of people who go nutso about four deaths in LIbya, but say, "Shit happens" about 5000 deaths in Iraq or 3000 deaths at the WTC.

The only person saying "shit happens" are you people on the left in regards to Benghazi...it's an oft repeated refrain in this string as a matter of fact. I don't go "nuts" over the deaths of those 4 Americans but I do get angry when I see the people responsible for those deaths because of naive policy make statements like "What difference does it make?" What difference does it make that your policy to draw down security for "appearances" left our diplomats vulnerable? I'd like to ask Hillary Clinton that question in person and then tell her how sleazy I think she was when she lied to the families of those men as their coffins were being unloaded on US soil.

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact is...the White House kept something that was in the original talking points that turned out to be completely wrong because it fit the narrative that they were going to put out to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi. It wasn't policies that were at fault...oh, no...this attack and the deaths of the four Americans were caused by spontaneous protests over a YouTube video that nobody could have foreseen. That was the story they went with and they played fast and loose with the truth to sell that narrative.

Again you're not being entirely truthful. The WH claimed was that it was militants or extremist who caused the deaths in Benghazi. They came to the Consulate building with the intent of launching an attack. There is little doubt that they were inspired by the events earlier in the day in Cairo as were many Islamic Extremist in the following days.

 

[Antares]

The fact is...the White House kept something that was in the original talking points that turned out to be completely wrong because it fit the narrative that they were going to put out to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi. It wasn't policies that were at fault...oh, no...this attack and the deaths of the four Americans were caused by spontaneous protests over a YouTube video that nobody could have foreseen. That was the story they went with and they played fast and loose with the truth to sell that narrative.

Again you're not being entirely truthful. The WH claimed was that it was militants or extremist who caused the deaths in Benghazi. They came to the Consulate building with the intent of launching an attack. There is little doubt that they were inspired by the events earlier in the day in Cairo as were many Islamic Extremist in the following days.

"Little doubt"?

"They came to the Consulate with the intent of launching an attack"?

There were no demonstrations in Benghazi,NONE.

They INDEED came to the Consulate to attack it, but there is NO evidence it was caused by the "video".

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact is...the White House kept something that was in the original talking points that turned out to be completely wrong because it fit the narrative that they were going to put out to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi. It wasn't policies that were at fault...oh, no...this attack and the deaths of the four Americans were caused by spontaneous protests over a YouTube video that nobody could have foreseen. That was the story they went with and they played fast and loose with the truth to sell that narrative.

Again you're not being entirely truthful. The WH claimed was that it was militants or extremist who caused the deaths in Benghazi. They came to the Consulate building with the intent of launching an attack. There is little doubt that they were inspired by the events earlier in the day in Cairo as were many Islamic Extremist in the following days.

Terrorists affiliated with Al Queda launched a pre-planned attack on our consulate on 9/11, Boo. They did not exploit a protest over a YouTube video as the Administration tried to claim. This was not something that was inspired by events happening "earlier in the day"...this was something that had been in the works for quite some time. An estimated 100 to 150 heavily armed attackers swarmed onto the consulate grounds from different directions at the same time...they went right to the building that they knew our Ambassador would be in. That didn't happen on the fly. This was something they had planned in advance. They even blocked off the surrounding streets with trucks carrying the Al Sharia logos and banners. This was NEVER a protest gone wild. This was ALWAYS an attack on a US diplomatic facility by an Al Queda affiliated terror group!

 

[BlindBoo]

Well kids, Trey Gowdy has opened hearings and over the next few months the Left will begin to produce evidence of the cover-up of the treason intrinsic to Benghazi.

As it always is, it will be the cover-up that proves the high-crime and that will be the end of our lame duck Peasentpimp of the Union States and his communist cult.

BS. There is no crime and no cover up. If incorrect information given as talking points to the press were a crime I think our entire government would be behind bars.

When the Gowdy commission ends with no indictments what false hope will you Dreamers cling to?

 

[Oldstyle]

Well kids, Trey Gowdy has opened hearings and over the next few months the Left will begin to produce evidence of the cover-up of the treason intrinsic to Benghazi.

As it always is, it will be the cover-up that proves the high-crime and that will be the end of our lame duck Peasentpimp of the Union States and his communist cult.

BS. There is no crime and no cover up. If incorrect information given as talking points to the press were a crime I think our entire government would be behind bars.

When the Gowdy commission ends with no indictments what false hope will you Dreamers cling to?

Naive policy that causes the deaths of Americans isn't a crime, Boo but it's a good reason to get rid of the person or persons who put those policies in place. Nobody will end up behind bars for Benghazi except for the little schmuck film maker the Obama White House used as a scapegoat for their own failings. This is about whether the woman behind the policies that got Christopher Stevens and those three other killed that night in Benghazi is competent enough to be our next President of the United States.

 

[Antares]

The State Dept itself was responsible for NOT extending the Security that had been in place until August 3rd, 2011.

It had twice previously formally requested that extension.

 

[Faun]

Imbecile ... where did I say your fairy tale was Obama, Clinton, and Rice reporting the attack was spurred by protests over a video?

Your fairy tale was claiming they lied. After seven investigations, we now know they were reporting information disseminated by our intelligence community.

But I understand ... Dreamers have to dream.

Kinda funny that the Rhodes e mail says they were all coached about demonstrations when there werent' any demonstrations at the consulate.

Jay Carney fumbles on bombshell email showing how the White House steered Benghazi terror-attack narrative toward an anti-Islam video Daily Mail Online

Dreamers like you gotta keep the faith. Asshole

Again, Dreamer, not to belabor the point, but after seven investigations, it has come to light that the narrative of the video being the catalyst of protests came from our intelligence community. You can ignore that all you want, but then, that's what Dreamers do.

Keep on dreaming F. You might even begin to believe it.

Anyone with half a brain, which obviously you don't have, knows they lied and why they lied.

There were no demonstrations at Benghazi over a video or anything else. What therre was was a pack of terrorist who attacked on the anniversary of 9-11. DUUUH

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Or mayby in your case you do.

Too funny. We had Birthers insist Obama's birth certificate was bullshit because they were so committed to their idiotic conspiracy, they refused to accept the facts ...

Now we have Dreamers insist the GOP-led investigations are bullshit because they are too committed to their conspiracy to accept any facts.

Since I'm not a birther your remarks are bullshit.

As for the facts?

They knew it was a terrorist attack yet told the American people it was a demonstration related to a video. I heard that myself.

They told that same lie for weeks.

Kinda funny how dreamers like you tend to dream your boy and his posse were telling the truth and didn't lie. Of course its the most transparant administration in history. An administration with a PhD in lying.

Another fact: Four good men died because of the fucking incompetence at Barry's State Department run by Hilbat.

Yeah. They all have our best interests at heart unless of course it interferes with an election campaign.

Idiot.

I never said you were a Birther. Learn to read. I said you are a Dreamer. You have this dream in your head that you can smear Obama and Clinton with a scandal which seven separate investigations have cleared them from.

Keep dreaming!

And again, since you didn't understand it the first three times I said it ... they kept pushing the narrative of the protest because that was what our intelligence community was saying provoked the attack.

Sorry, but idiocy from you Dreamers does not trump the findings from seven investigations. Better luck with investigations 8 and 9.

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact is...the White House kept something that was in the original talking points that turned out to be completely wrong because it fit the narrative that they were going to put out to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi. It wasn't policies that were at fault...oh, no...this attack and the deaths of the four Americans were caused by spontaneous protests over a YouTube video that nobody could have foreseen. That was the story they went with and they played fast and loose with the truth to sell that narrative.

Again you're not being entirely truthful. The WH claimed was that it was militants or extremist who caused the deaths in Benghazi. They came to the Consulate building with the intent of launching an attack. There is little doubt that they were inspired by the events earlier in the day in Cairo as were many Islamic Extremist in the following days.

"Little doubt"?

"They came to the Consulate with the intent of launching an attack"?

There were no demonstrations in Benghazi,NONE.

They INDEED came to the Consulate to attack it, but there is NO evidence it was caused by the "video".

The attacks were cause by extremist with heavy weapons who were inspired by the protest and breaches in our embassy in Cairo early that day. That was just the beginning of violent protests around the world.

 

[Faun]

OS 10329159 Why did Obama refer to it as an act of terror on the very next day after the attack? Why did Susan Rice go on TV and tell Americans that extremists came with heavy weapons to attack the consulate? She did not say that protesters came with heavy weapons. She said extremists came with heavy weapons. By mentioning 'extremists bringing heavy weapons' on every show that Susan Rice went on, it totally debunks your CT about a 'narrative to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi'. To diffuse the fallout, as you wish were true. they would have had to deny that it was an act of terror and denied that extremists attacked the consulate and CIA annex with heavy weapons. But they didn't. So your CT is as goofy as ever.

And after weeks of complaining about the White House 'changing the talking points 12 times' now you are arguing that they kept the CIA talking points the same and their dastardly deed is now 'not changing' what the CIA assessed in the first few days after the attack. How do you live with yourself making an argument today that is opposite the argument you made yesterday?

Obama did not refer to the Benghazi Attacks as a terrorist attack within 24 hours, he referred TO terrorist attacks and said he was against 'em. Susan Rice made the rounds on the Sunday Political circuit and consistently blamed the attacks on a riot resulting from a Youtube video. A riot in which she noted that RPGs were present in the resultant attack.

All you're trying to do is to rationalize the facts as a means to revise the history, wherein the State Department and the Peasantpimp of the Union States took action, abusing their authority and the public trust, AT BEST: TO CONCEAL THEIR FAILURES.

But in truth, they were complicit in the attack... which served as a means to cover up the Executive Branch's efforts which will soon be shown to have been the foundational actions taken in the creation of that which we know today as: ISIS. OKA: Treason on a scale which no American could have ever believed to be possible.

In speaking of the attack in Benghazi, Obama said ...

"And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."​

... you have to twist your own comprehension abilities into a tortured contortion in order to convince yourself Obama wasn't speaking of the attack in Benghazi when he said, "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."

I would say you were correct in that assumption, Faun except for Obama's refusal to call it a terror attack over the next several weeks! When you won't label it a terror attack AFTER you've made THAT speech then one has to look at the statement and realize that Obama was speaking "generally" about terror and not specifically about Benghazi. You can't refuse to call it a terror attack and then go back weeks later and say that you DID call it a terror attack.

It's in context. He called it a terror attack the very next morning. When our intelligence community pushed the video protests after that, the administration echoed the intelligence. When the CIA reassessed the motive behind the attack, the administration relayed that to the public. None of which alters the context of Obama's initial statement in the Rose Garden.

If he called it a terror attack the day after...then why did he and numerous others in his Administration steadfastly refuse to call it a terror attack for the next week and a half, Faun?

When did the intelligence community "push" the YouTube video protest angle? That was what the original assessment was right after the attacks but within 24 hours the intelligence community was quite sure that there was no protest and had informed the White House of just that. You've got Susan Rice going out on all of those talk shows a week after the attack and stating that their best information was that it was a protest over a video that escalated into an attack when they KNEW that our intelligence community no longer held that view and hadn't for quite some time!

Read the report. Your false narrative has been debunked.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the two-year investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

Immediately after the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest.

But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

GOP panel on Benghazi finds no Obama administration wrongdoing - LA Times​

 

[Faun]

Well kids, Trey Gowdy has opened hearings and over the next few months the Left will begin to produce evidence of the cover-up of the treason intrinsic to Benghazi.

As it always is, it will be the cover-up that proves the high-crime and that will be the end of our lame duck Peasentpimp of the Union States and his communist cult.

That will be the ninth investigation into Benghazi. How many you reckon it's gonna take for you to accept reality? 10? 20? 30??

However many it takes to get to the truth. This would have been over with after the FIRST investigation if the Obama White House had been as "transparent" as they promised they would be! When you need Freedom of Information law suits to get documents that the White House has deliberately hidden from Congress then it's going to be a long process. Blaming the investigators is rather amusing since they simply wanted to get answers. It's the White House that's been delaying this process.

Funny ... that's what Birthers sound like.

I'm tellin' ya ... Dreamers = the new Birthers

You're the one who can't answer simple questions like why the White House felt the need to reclassify Ben Rhodes emails to "Top Secret" and hide them from Congressional investigators for over a year, Faun. You want to make me out as a delusional version of a "Birther"? I've never once stated that I believed Barack Obama was not born in a hospital in Honolulu. My reasons for not thinking he should be President lie solely in his competence...not in whether or not he was born in the US.

What the Obama White House DID after the Benghazi attacks isn't some wild conjecture on my part. What they did is completely illustrated by their own emails. They pressured the intelligence community to sanitize the original talking points by removing references to Al Queda. The White House then retained the original and completely wrong assessment by the intelligence community that the attacks followed a protest over the video and pushed that version of events for as long as they possibly could. Jay Carney lied to the Press Corps about what they had done. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all lied to the families of the dead men when their bodies came home telling them that they would get the man responsible for the video that caused those deaths. Ben Rhodes then sent Susan Rice out to all those Sunday morning talk shows to mislead the American people...once again making the point that the attacks followed a protest.

None of that is conjecture on my part. That's what occurred. If you're a Hillary Clinton supporter then you're going to have to deal with her responsibility for policy before the deaths and her part in the coverup that took place after. They chose to dance the dance...now it's time to pay the fiddler!

You're another idiot. I never said you were a Birther.

And I haven't seen your evidence that the email was classified to keep it out of the hands of Congress. The context of the email was driven by intel from the CIA. No matter how hard you Dreamers try to pin this on Obama or Clinton, you fail. It's been investigated seven times so far and not a single investigation found either Obama or Clinton or Rice did anything wrong.

Deal with it, Dreamer.

 

[Faun]

The fact is...the White House kept something that was in the original talking points that turned out to be completely wrong because it fit the narrative that they were going to put out to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi. It wasn't policies that were at fault...oh, no...this attack and the deaths of the four Americans were caused by spontaneous protests over a YouTube video that nobody could have foreseen. That was the story they went with and they played fast and loose with the truth to sell that narrative.

Again you're not being entirely truthful. The WH claimed was that it was militants or extremist who caused the deaths in Benghazi. They came to the Consulate building with the intent of launching an attack. There is little doubt that they were inspired by the events earlier in the day in Cairo as were many Islamic Extremist in the following days.

Terrorists affiliated with Al Queda launched a pre-planned attack on our consulate on 9/11, Boo. They did not exploit a protest over a YouTube video as the Administration tried to claim. This was not something that was inspired by events happening "earlier in the day"...this was something that had been in the works for quite some time. An estimated 100 to 150 heavily armed attackers swarmed onto the consulate grounds from different directions at the same time...they went right to the building that they knew our Ambassador would be in. That didn't happen on the fly. This was something they had planned in advance. They even blocked off the surrounding streets with trucks carrying the Al Sharia logos and banners. This was NEVER a protest gone wild. This was ALWAYS an attack on a US diplomatic facility by an Al Queda affiliated terror group!

And for two weeks, our intelligence community was thinking it was a protest over the video.

 

[Faun]

Well kids, Trey Gowdy has opened hearings and over the next few months the Left will begin to produce evidence of the cover-up of the treason intrinsic to Benghazi.

As it always is, it will be the cover-up that proves the high-crime and that will be the end of our lame duck Peasentpimp of the Union States and his communist cult.

BS. There is no crime and no cover up. If incorrect information given as talking points to the press were a crime I think our entire government would be behind bars.

When the Gowdy commission ends with no indictments what false hope will you Dreamers cling to?

Naive policy that causes the deaths of Americans isn't a crime, Boo but it's a good reason to get rid of the person or persons who put those policies in place. Nobody will end up behind bars for Benghazi except for the little schmuck film maker the Obama White House used as a scapegoat for their own failings. This is about whether the woman behind the policies that got Christopher Stevens and those three other killed that night in Benghazi is competent enough to be our next President of the United States.

Dreamer, when are you going to learn it wasn't the administration who failed nor was it the administration who got those 4 Americans killed nor was it the administration who came up with the story about a protest sparked by a video.

Read the fucking report.

Your lies have all been debunked, Dreamer.

 

[Antares]

The fact is...the White House kept something that was in the original talking points that turned out to be completely wrong because it fit the narrative that they were going to put out to diffuse the fallout from Benghazi. It wasn't policies that were at fault...oh, no...this attack and the deaths of the four Americans were caused by spontaneous protests over a YouTube video that nobody could have foreseen. That was the story they went with and they played fast and loose with the truth to sell that narrative.

Again you're not being entirely truthful. The WH claimed was that it was militants or extremist who caused the deaths in Benghazi. They came to the Consulate building with the intent of launching an attack. There is little doubt that they were inspired by the events earlier in the day in Cairo as were many Islamic Extremist in the following days.

"Little doubt"?

"They came to the Consulate with the intent of launching an attack"?

There were no demonstrations in Benghazi,NONE.

They INDEED came to the Consulate to attack it, but there is NO evidence it was caused by the "video".

The attacks were cause by extremist with heavy weapons who were inspired by the protest and breaches in our embassy in Cairo early that day. That was just the beginning of violent protests around the world.

Of course you can "prove" this?

 

[Vigilante]

Has anyone discussed this?

Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements

"On Tuesday I raised the question of why none of the Benghazi survivors, whether State Department, CIA, or private security contract employees have testified publicly before Congress," said Wolf.
"According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer."
Wolf continued: "It is worth noting that the Marine Corps Times yesterday reported that the Marine colonel whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa at the time of the attack is still on active duty despite claims that he retired. And therefore could not be forced to testify before Congress.
"If these reports are accurate, this would be a stunning revelation to any member of Congress, any member of Congress that finds this out and also more importantly to the American people. It also raises serious concerns about the priority of the administration's efforts to silence those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack in response.

Congressman Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements The Weekly Standard#

Hmmm, so whatdya think, vagisil? The CIA excused them from their non-disclosure so they could write a book about their ordeal?

well Pawned, do you have any idea why these men didn't testify before the committee? You have a link to some pertinent info?

John Kerry tells Congress that he will not allow Benghazi survivors to testify - Tampa Bay Conservative Examiner.com

 

[Faun]

Has anyone discussed this?

Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements

"On Tuesday I raised the question of why none of the Benghazi survivors, whether State Department, CIA, or private security contract employees have testified publicly before Congress," said Wolf.
"According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer."
Wolf continued: "It is worth noting that the Marine Corps Times yesterday reported that the Marine colonel whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa at the time of the attack is still on active duty despite claims that he retired. And therefore could not be forced to testify before Congress.
"If these reports are accurate, this would be a stunning revelation to any member of Congress, any member of Congress that finds this out and also more importantly to the American people. It also raises serious concerns about the priority of the administration's efforts to silence those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack in response.

Congressman Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements The Weekly Standard#

Hmmm, so whatdya think, vagisil? The CIA excused them from their non-disclosure so they could write a book about their ordeal?

well Pawned, do you have any idea why these men didn't testify before the committee? You have a link to some pertinent info?

You're too big of a moron to deal with, vagisil.

They did give testimony to the committee. We know this because they complained the final report didn't include some of their testimony.

And again, you shvance, they wrote a book about it. Explain how people under a non-disclosure can publically write about the very subject you claim they were legally bound to remain quiet on?