"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10346620

and then an attack kills the wxAmbassador and three others..

Two were killed at the CIA Annex which was not State Dept responsibility for security.

The Ambassador was overcome with smoke.

Try to get your story straight.

Bad things happen - like Americans dying in the Pentagon in September 2001.

 

[Faun]

Simply amazing. Let's say you're right that the Obama administration failed to provide adequate protection for the Ambassador. 7 investigations concluded differently even though you simply refuse to accept them, but let's say it happened anyway .... The Bush administration failed to prevent 9.11. Almost 3,000 people perished that day as we suffered the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now I can easily look back to those days with a fine toothed comb and spell out many mistakes that were made that led up to the attack .... the administration blowing off Clarke ... ignoring warnings ... inept response by NORAD ... taking absolutely zero precautions against an attack ... rejecting an FBI budget increase for counter-terrorism .... I can go on and on and basically do the same Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing now. The difference ... ? 3,000 versus 4. The World Trade Center versus a consulate. A trillion dollar hit to our economy versus no hit to our economy. 1 investigation versus 9 investigations. Democrats getting behind the president over 3,000 deaths versus Republicans trying to politicize 4 deaths.

Point being .... your moral compass is broken.

Let's say I'm right about the Obama Administration failed to provide adequate protection the Ambassador? Faun...when you draw down a security detail from 30 to 9 when security concerns are getting more dire by the day...do so over the repeated protests of the Ambassador who understands the situation best...and then an attack kills the Ambassador and three others...yeah, I'd say that fits the definition of a 'failure' of policy!

Why do you people even bother trying to equate what happened on the first 9/11 with Hillary Clinton's naive policies towards diplomatic security? One was a sneak attack that nobody saw coming. The other was almost inevitable given the Clinton State Department policies. Nobody lied about what caused the first 9/11. Nobody tried to blame it on a "protest".

Nobody saw 9.11 coming? Who you kidding? John Ashcroft saw it coming ... he stopped flying on commercial flights in the summer of 2001.

Your moral compass is broken.

So of curse you would have supported the Profiling that would have been necessary.

There was a similar threat of Islamic terrorists highjacking a commercial flight in 1998. Clinton had airport security raised at some airports in the NE. 2 terrorists were arrested and a possible 9.11 type of attack may have been thwarted.

I don't recall anyone complaining about profiling. Is that the best you can do?

So you support profiling,correct?

To prevent 9.11, yes. As I just pointed out ... no one complained about it in 1998

 

[Oldstyle]

Every time you post here, Joey...you display yet another layer of ignorance that's worse than the ones before.

We didn't "occupy" Lebanon...we were there as a peacekeeping force.

Oh, a "Peacekeeping" force. That was immediately attacked by the people who didn't want us keeping the "Peace" over there.

What "Zionist presence" in Afghanistan are you babbling about?

I meant Palestine. Frankly, we stick our dicks in so many holes over there it is hard to keep them straight.

We bombed Iraq and put sanctions on it after Iraq attacked a peaceful neighbor, Kuwait and tried to seize it. You make it sound like we attacked Iraq on a whim.

Okay, let's look at that. Saddam attacked Iran. We not only said nothing about it, but we actually supplied him weapons. Then he attacked Kuwait, not that this was our problem because the Kuwaitis had no one to blame but themselves. And suddenly, the oil companies and Zionists were all "We have to get Saddam!!!!!"

You have a hard time telling Afghanistan apart from Israel? You know what, Joey...if it was anyone else but you I'd mock them for that statement...but with you I believe it's probably the truth! Proving once again just how clueless you really are.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10346620

and then an attack kills the wxAmbassador and three others..

Two were killed at the CIA Annex which was not State Dept responsibility for security.

The Ambassador was overcome with smoke.

Try to get your story straight.

Bad things happen - like Americans dying in the Pentagon in September 2001.

You make it sound like Christopher Stevens accidentally died in a house fire instead of having the consulate doused with diesel fuel and set on fire in order to smoke them out of their "safe room".

Bad things DO happen! Especially when you've got idiots making policy that the people in the field have to deal with.

 

[Oldstyle]

Essentially what the idiots are claiming is that multiple cover-ups have not produced any 'report' that speaks to that which they sought to cover up.

Such is the nature of evil.

Imbecile ... 7 investigations (and counting) have concluded there was no cover up. G'head ... convince me the GOP is lying in all of these investigations to protect Obama and Clinton.

How many investigations didn't turn up the Ben Rhodes emails at all, Faun? You can have a thousand "investigations" but if the White House and the State Department stonewall and refuse to release pertinent documents like the Rhodes emails then they haven't done their job...have they?

 

[Antares]

OS 10346620

and then an attack kills the wxAmbassador and three others..

Two were killed at the CIA Annex which was not State Dept responsibility for security.

The Ambassador was overcome with smoke.

Try to get your story straight.

Bad things happen - like Americans dying in the Pentagon in September 2001.

LOL,dipshit the Security detail is for the Ambassador, not a Bldg....you Lefty's are sick fucks.

 

[Faun]

Essentially what the idiots are claiming is that multiple cover-ups have not produced any 'report' that speaks to that which they sought to cover up.

Such is the nature of evil.

Imbecile ... 7 investigations (and counting) have concluded there was no cover up. G'head ... convince me the GOP is lying in all of these investigations to protect Obama and Clinton.

How many investigations didn't turn up the Ben Rhodes emails at all, Faun? You can have a thousand "investigations" but if the White House and the State Department stonewall and refuse to release pertinent documents like the Rhodes emails then they haven't done their job...have they?

As a matter of fact, investigation #8 is about that email. Investigation #9 has already been announced. Dreamers dream on.

But don't get your hopes up. I saw nothing incriminating in that email. At worst, it contained some talking points for Susan Rice based on the intelligence community's assessment at the time. Don't forget, the CIA didn't change its narrative about video inspired protests until September 24th.

 

[JoeB131]

You have a hard time telling Afghanistan apart from Israel? You know what, Joey...if it was anyone else but you I'd mock them for that statement...but with you I believe it's probably the truth! Proving once again just how clueless you really are.

No, I didn't have any problem telling the difference, I just typed a bit too fast. I also don't use the word "Israel" to describe the illegal Zionist Entity in Palestine.

But considering that you are happy to send other people's sons over to these shitholes to die, nothing you say should be taken seriously.

 

[Oldstyle]

You have a hard time telling Afghanistan apart from Israel? You know what, Joey...if it was anyone else but you I'd mock them for that statement...but with you I believe it's probably the truth! Proving once again just how clueless you really are.

No, I didn't have any problem telling the difference, I just typed a bit too fast. I also don't use the word "Israel" to describe the illegal Zionist Entity in Palestine.

But considering that you are happy to send other people's sons over to these shitholes to die, nothing you say should be taken seriously.

Typing Iraq when you meant to type Iran is a "typo", Joey...getting confused between Afghanistan and Palestine is simple stupidity.

 

[Oldstyle]

Essentially what the idiots are claiming is that multiple cover-ups have not produced any 'report' that speaks to that which they sought to cover up.

Such is the nature of evil.

Imbecile ... 7 investigations (and counting) have concluded there was no cover up. G'head ... convince me the GOP is lying in all of these investigations to protect Obama and Clinton.

How many investigations didn't turn up the Ben Rhodes emails at all, Faun? You can have a thousand "investigations" but if the White House and the State Department stonewall and refuse to release pertinent documents like the Rhodes emails then they haven't done their job...have they?

As a matter of fact, investigation #8 is about that email. Investigation #9 has already been announced. Dreamers dream on.

But don't get your hopes up. I saw nothing incriminating in that email. At worst, it contained some talking points for Susan Rice based on the intelligence community's assessment at the time. Don't forget, the CIA didn't change its narrative about video inspired protests until September 24th.

Here's the problem, Faun...why DIDN'T the CIA change it's narrative about video inspired protests until September when it was obvious after 24 hours that there never WAS a protest? We know that both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department were exerting enormous pressure on the CIA to tailor their intelligence reports in a fashion that wasn't politically toxic to both Obama and Clinton and that's simply from knowing that they forced the 13 revisions to the original talking points. How much pressure do you think was taking place behind the scenes between the CIA and the Obama Administration to support the narrative that the White House was selling? And if the CIA was being compliant with White House wishes that would make them party to the attempts to mislead Congress.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Anta 10348185

LOL,dipshit the Security detail is for the Ambassador, not

The Ambassador was not at the CIA Annwx. You know less than Oldstyle does and that isn't much.

 

[JoeB131]

Typing Iraq when you meant to type Iran is a "typo", Joey...getting confused between Afghanistan and Palestine is simple stupidity.

NO, stupidity is whining about 4 deaths on Obama's watch while ignoring 5000 deaths on Bush's watch.

 

[Faun]

Essentially what the idiots are claiming is that multiple cover-ups have not produced any 'report' that speaks to that which they sought to cover up.

Such is the nature of evil.

Imbecile ... 7 investigations (and counting) have concluded there was no cover up. G'head ... convince me the GOP is lying in all of these investigations to protect Obama and Clinton.

How many investigations didn't turn up the Ben Rhodes emails at all, Faun? You can have a thousand "investigations" but if the White House and the State Department stonewall and refuse to release pertinent documents like the Rhodes emails then they haven't done their job...have they?

As a matter of fact, investigation #8 is about that email. Investigation #9 has already been announced. Dreamers dream on.

But don't get your hopes up. I saw nothing incriminating in that email. At worst, it contained some talking points for Susan Rice based on the intelligence community's assessment at the time. Don't forget, the CIA didn't change its narrative about video inspired protests until September 24th.

Here's the problem, Faun...why DIDN'T the CIA change it's narrative about video inspired protests until September when it was obvious after 24 hours that there never WAS a protest? We know that both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department were exerting enormous pressure on the CIA to tailor their intelligence reports in a fashion that wasn't politically toxic to both Obama and Clinton and that's simply from knowing that they forced the 13 revisions to the original talking points. How much pressure do you think was taking place behind the scenes between the CIA and the Obama Administration to support the narrative that the White House was selling? And if the CIA was being compliant with White House wishes that would make them party to the attempts to mislead Congress.

Not one of the 7 investigations found the administration pressuring the CIA to maintain the protest narrative.

It's a pity you Dreamers have to resort to lies just to keep their dream alive.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10348159

You make it sound like Christopher Stevens accidentally died in a house fire...

No I didn't. That is your imagination run amok again. I'm making the point that you must not be able to counter that the security in place was fairly close to being sufficient to saving Amb Stevens's life. Sure, more security may have prevented the fire being set, but at what cost do you make judgment calls that certain security arrangements are sufficient. You were not demanding prior to the attacks that Congress provide unlimited spending for all security needs around the world were you?

 

[Freewill]

Has anyone yet contacted Ambassador Stevens and told him he isn't dead?

 

[Oldstyle]

Essentially what the idiots are claiming is that multiple cover-ups have not produced any 'report' that speaks to that which they sought to cover up.

Such is the nature of evil.

Imbecile ... 7 investigations (and counting) have concluded there was no cover up. G'head ... convince me the GOP is lying in all of these investigations to protect Obama and Clinton.

How many investigations didn't turn up the Ben Rhodes emails at all, Faun? You can have a thousand "investigations" but if the White House and the State Department stonewall and refuse to release pertinent documents like the Rhodes emails then they haven't done their job...have they?

As a matter of fact, investigation #8 is about that email. Investigation #9 has already been announced. Dreamers dream on.

But don't get your hopes up. I saw nothing incriminating in that email. At worst, it contained some talking points for Susan Rice based on the intelligence community's assessment at the time. Don't forget, the CIA didn't change its narrative about video inspired protests until September 24th.

Here's the problem, Faun...why DIDN'T the CIA change it's narrative about video inspired protests until September when it was obvious after 24 hours that there never WAS a protest? We know that both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department were exerting enormous pressure on the CIA to tailor their intelligence reports in a fashion that wasn't politically toxic to both Obama and Clinton and that's simply from knowing that they forced the 13 revisions to the original talking points. How much pressure do you think was taking place behind the scenes between the CIA and the Obama Administration to support the narrative that the White House was selling? And if the CIA was being compliant with White House wishes that would make them party to the attempts to mislead Congress.

Not one of the 7 investigations found the administration pressuring the CIA to maintain the protest narrative.

It's a pity you Dreamers have to resort to lies just to keep their dream alive.

So the intelligence community has already reaching the conclusion that there was no protest 24 hours after the attack...the White House and the State Department are demanding revision after revision of the original talking points...to which the CIA complies totally...and then the CIA doesn't retract it's protest gone bad talking point until several weeks have gone by...but you don't think the White House was pressuring the CIA to retain the protest talking point even though the White House is trotting out Susan Rice to seven Sunday morning news programs to push the YouTube protest narrative? I'm amused by how willingly naive you make yourself so this whole scenario makes sense, Faun!

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10348159

You make it sound like Christopher Stevens accidentally died in a house fire...

No I didn't. That is your imagination run amok again. I'm making the point that you must not be able to counter that the security in place was fairly close to being sufficient to saving Amb Stevens's life. Sure, more security may have prevented the fire being set, but at what cost do you make judgment calls that certain security arrangements are sufficient. You were not demanding prior to the attacks that Congress provide unlimited spending for all security needs around the world were you?

Oh for the love of God! It isn't my "imagination" that security was insufficient...it's rather obvious from what took place on the ground that night in Benghazi that the decision to take away 2/3's of Ambassador Steven's security team in light of what was taking place in Libya was an AWFUL decision and that doing so left the Ambassador's security woefully shorthanded.

Let me ask you this...did Hillary Clinton slash the security details for other diplomats around the world like she did in Libya? Did she cut the details for embassies that were in countries that weren't experiencing widespread violence as Libya was? If not...why not? Why would you cut the security staff in a place that obviously needed it and not do so at places that were historically safe? What made the State Department cut security in Libya SO drastically? If there is a reason that isn't based on politics and appearances...one that doesn't totally ignore reality...then I'd like to hear what it was!

 

[Delldude]

Bwahahahahaaaaaa.....

You airhead righties often post links to HotAir.com as fact.

Now what do you have to say? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal
Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal Hot Air Headlines


Oh, wait! Just to corroborate your beloved blog, your beloved Washington Examiner says it ain't so either, TOOLS.

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism, policy failures
"""A two-year congressional investigation into the deadly 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, found that while the State Department ignored warnings of terrorist threats, Obama administration appointees weren’t directly to blame.
The report, conducted by the Republican-run House Intelligence Committee and declassified Friday, debunks several conspiracies regarding the administration’s involvement in the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.""

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism policy failures WashingtonExaminer.com

What idiots, chasing shiny things that the GOP throws in your path.

Anyone mention Mike Rogers wife worked for the company retrieving weapons in Benghazi and Libya and a huge conflict of interest with him investigating? No worry, they both resigned. Funny too, Trey Gowdy was told by Boehner to keep investigating.......Hmmm.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bwahahahahaaaaaa.....

You airhead righties often post links to HotAir.com as fact.

Now what do you have to say? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal
Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal Hot Air Headlines


Oh, wait! Just to corroborate your beloved blog, your beloved Washington Examiner says it ain't so either, TOOLS.

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism, policy failures
"""A two-year congressional investigation into the deadly 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, found that while the State Department ignored warnings of terrorist threats, Obama administration appointees weren’t directly to blame.
The report, conducted by the Republican-run House Intelligence Committee and declassified Friday, debunks several conspiracies regarding the administration’s involvement in the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.""

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism policy failures WashingtonExaminer.com

What idiots, chasing shiny things that the GOP throws in your path.

Anyone mention Mike Rogers wife worked for the company retrieving weapons in Benghazi and Libya and a huge conflict of interest with him investigating? No worry, they both resigned. Funny too, Trey Gowdy was told by Boehner to keep investigating.......Hmmm.

Of course he did.

For a conspiracy theory to continue, the 'investigation' must continue, having nothing to do whatsoever with uncovering facts or the truth.

 

[Delldude]

Bwahahahahaaaaaa.....

You airhead righties often post links to HotAir.com as fact.

Now what do you have to say? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal
Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal Hot Air Headlines


Oh, wait! Just to corroborate your beloved blog, your beloved Washington Examiner says it ain't so either, TOOLS.

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism, policy failures
"""A two-year congressional investigation into the deadly 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, found that while the State Department ignored warnings of terrorist threats, Obama administration appointees weren’t directly to blame.
The report, conducted by the Republican-run House Intelligence Committee and declassified Friday, debunks several conspiracies regarding the administration’s involvement in the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.""

House Benghazi report delivers mixed story of heroism policy failures WashingtonExaminer.com

What idiots, chasing shiny things that the GOP throws in your path.

Anyone mention Mike Rogers wife worked for the company retrieving weapons in Benghazi and Libya and a huge conflict of interest with him investigating? No worry, they both resigned. Funny too, Trey Gowdy was told by Boehner to keep investigating.......Hmmm.

Of course he did.

For a conspiracy theory to continue, the 'investigation' must continue, having nothing to do whatsoever with uncovering facts or the truth.

And time will tell.