"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Faun]

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!

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting. It matters not what the CIA thought on day one, if your claim is even true. What matters, and what every investigation determined, was that the CIA was telling the administration that protests over a video sparked the attacks. And they told the administration that during the period the administration was publically declaring the video was the reason.

So there were no lies, Dreamer. You can repeat otherwise just like Birthers continue to cry that Obama BC is a fake, but your cries do not undermine 7 (so far) investigations.

I also note, you have no proof the administration pressured the CIA to push the protest narrative. The Rhodes email certainly doesn't indicate that. The Rhodes email only show the administration wanted Susan Rice to keep pushing the protest narrative. Susan Rice was not the CIA.

 

[Freewill]

I have four reasons that anyone should be able to figure out as to why Benghazi is a scandal Just because the left doesn't give a crap about those four reasons doesn't make it any less so.

 

[Faun]

I have four reasons that anyone should be able to figure out as to why Benghazi is a scandal Just because the left doesn't give a crap about those four reasons doesn't make it any less so.

Seven GOP-led investigations say otherwise. Seven GOP-led investigations reveal you're nothing but a Dreamer clinging to a conspiracy like a Birther clings to Orly Taitz.

 

[Oldstyle]

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!

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting. It matters not what the CIA thought on day one, if your claim is even true. What matters, and what every investigation determined, was that the CIA was telling the administration that protests over a video sparked the attacks. And they told the administration that during the period the administration was publically declaring the video was the reason.

So there were no lies, Dreamer. You can repeat otherwise just like Birthers continue to cry that Obama BC is a fake, but your cries do not undermine 7 (so far) investigations.

I also note, you have no proof the administration pressured the CIA to push the protest narrative. The Rhodes email certainly doesn't indicate that. The Rhodes email only show the administration wanted Susan Rice to keep pushing the protest narrative. Susan Rice was not the CIA.

So it doesn't matter that what the CIA thought on day one needed to be changed all those times before their talking points were acceptable to the White House and the State Department? So you think for some reason that the CIA caved to THAT pressure yet somehow maintained integrity from there on out? What the Rhodes email demonstrates is the amount of effort and concern that the White House was devoting to maintaining a certain narrative in regards to Benghazi. It's the same thing with the Nuland emails. They demonstrate how freaked out the State Department was over the political fallout from their "normalization" decision to draw down security in Libya. The reclassification of the Rhodes emails to Top Secret show that the Obama White House even at that point understood that they needed to hide what it was that they'd just done. One can only assume that if they were going to the trouble of reclassifying emails like Rhodes that they were much more careful about how they communicated amongst themselves so that they wouldn't HAVE to hide more documents.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I ask once again, Faun...how many investigations took place before we even learned about the Rhodes emails?

 

[Freewill]

I have four reasons that anyone should be able to figure out as to why Benghazi is a scandal Just because the left doesn't give a crap about those four reasons doesn't make it any less so.

Seven GOP-led investigations say otherwise. Seven GOP-led investigations reveal you're nothing but a Dreamer clinging to a conspiracy like a Birther clings to Orly Taitz.

Don't really know how or why the Republicans came to whatever conclusion they came to. Do I trust them? Only slightly more then I trust democrats, which ain't much.

I would much rather remember what I saw and heard and make conclusions. I saw Obama immediately blame a video. I saw Rice go on at least four Sunday morning news show and state what was not true.

I know that the Ambassador was put in an unsafe situation and we don't know why. Could be that the Republicans are covering for gun running that the Ambassador was in charge of. For "national security" reasons.

What I know for sure is four people didn't have to die, to me that is a scandal. Regardless of who is running cover.

 

[Faun]

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!

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting. It matters not what the CIA thought on day one, if your claim is even true. What matters, and what every investigation determined, was that the CIA was telling the administration that protests over a video sparked the attacks. And they told the administration that during the period the administration was publically declaring the video was the reason.

So there were no lies, Dreamer. You can repeat otherwise just like Birthers continue to cry that Obama BC is a fake, but your cries do not undermine 7 (so far) investigations.

I also note, you have no proof the administration pressured the CIA to push the protest narrative. The Rhodes email certainly doesn't indicate that. The Rhodes email only show the administration wanted Susan Rice to keep pushing the protest narrative. Susan Rice was not the CIA.

So it doesn't matter that what the CIA thought on day one needed to be changed all those times before their talking points were acceptable to the White House and the State Department? So you think for some reason that the CIA caved to THAT pressure yet somehow maintained integrity from there on out? What the Rhodes email demonstrates is the amount of effort and concern that the White House was devoting to maintaining a certain narrative in regards to Benghazi. It's the same thing with the Nuland emails. They demonstrate how freaked out the State Department was over the political fallout from their "normalization" decision to draw down security in Libya. The reclassification of the Rhodes emails to Top Secret show that the Obama White House even at that point understood that they needed to hide what it was that they'd just done. One can only assume that if they were going to the trouble of reclassifying emails like Rhodes that they were much more careful about how they communicated amongst themselves so that they wouldn't HAVE to hide more documents.

No, it doesn't matter because as they collected information, they came to the conclusion the attack was a protest sparked by an anti-Islamic video. That's what matters. And it matters because that was what the IC was feeding to the administration during the period the administration was publically pushing the protest narrative.

 

[Oldstyle]

How many investigations were there into the IRS scandal before "miraculously" they found some 30,000 of Lois Lerner's emails? When people are deliberately hiding evidence you keep investigating until you discover the truth. If you don't then you encourage governmental officials to lie and hide the truth from us in the future.

 

[Freewill]

How many investigations were there into the IRS scandal before "miraculously" they found some 30,000 of Lois Lerner's emails? When people are deliberately hiding evidence you keep investigating until you discover the truth. If you don't then you encourage governmental officials to lie and hide the truth from us in the future.

How long did watergate drag out?

 

[Oldstyle]

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!

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting. It matters not what the CIA thought on day one, if your claim is even true. What matters, and what every investigation determined, was that the CIA was telling the administration that protests over a video sparked the attacks. And they told the administration that during the period the administration was publically declaring the video was the reason.

So there were no lies, Dreamer. You can repeat otherwise just like Birthers continue to cry that Obama BC is a fake, but your cries do not undermine 7 (so far) investigations.

I also note, you have no proof the administration pressured the CIA to push the protest narrative. The Rhodes email certainly doesn't indicate that. The Rhodes email only show the administration wanted Susan Rice to keep pushing the protest narrative. Susan Rice was not the CIA.

So it doesn't matter that what the CIA thought on day one needed to be changed all those times before their talking points were acceptable to the White House and the State Department? So you think for some reason that the CIA caved to THAT pressure yet somehow maintained integrity from there on out? What the Rhodes email demonstrates is the amount of effort and concern that the White House was devoting to maintaining a certain narrative in regards to Benghazi. It's the same thing with the Nuland emails. They demonstrate how freaked out the State Department was over the political fallout from their "normalization" decision to draw down security in Libya. The reclassification of the Rhodes emails to Top Secret show that the Obama White House even at that point understood that they needed to hide what it was that they'd just done. One can only assume that if they were going to the trouble of reclassifying emails like Rhodes that they were much more careful about how they communicated amongst themselves so that they wouldn't HAVE to hide more documents.

No, it doesn't matter because as they collected information, they came to the conclusion the attack was a protest sparked by an anti-Islamic video. That's what matters. And it matters because that was what the IC was feeding to the administration during the period the administration was publically pushing the protest narrative.

That's the story that the Administration is now pushing but the facts belie that, Faun. It was readily apparent from almost the very start that there was no protest in Benghazi that night. If there HAD been one don't you think Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the Consulate would have informed someone of that taking place? The truth is...an hour and a half before the attack starts...Christopher Stevens walks a Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the Consulate and the street is EMPTY! The protest gone wild theory was quickly discarded by everyone BUT the Obama White House! They kept that narrative going as long as they possibly could...until even the pro-Obama press corp were refusing to believe the bullshit that Jay Carney was feeding them.

 

[Faun]

I have four reasons that anyone should be able to figure out as to why Benghazi is a scandal Just because the left doesn't give a crap about those four reasons doesn't make it any less so.

Seven GOP-led investigations say otherwise. Seven GOP-led investigations reveal you're nothing but a Dreamer clinging to a conspiracy like a Birther clings to Orly Taitz.

Don't really know how or why the Republicans came to whatever conclusion they came to. Do I trust them? Only slightly more then I trust democrats, which ain't much.

I would much rather remember what I saw and heard and make conclusions. I saw Obama immediately blame a video. I saw Rice go on at least four Sunday morning news show and state what was not true.

I know that the Ambassador was put in an unsafe situation and we don't know why. Could be that the Republicans are covering for gun running that the Ambassador was in charge of. For "national security" reasons.

What I know for sure is four people didn't have to die, to me that is a scandal. Regardless of who is running cover.

For SEVEN independent investigations to reach the same conclusions, if all SEVEN were lying -- would require the GOP to be providing cover for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

If you can't see the mortal gaping head wound in that, than you're a Dreamer who has gone too far off the Dreamer cliff. There is no hope in saving you.

I don't care if you barely trust the GOP -- there ain't no way in hell they're covering for Obama and Clinton.

And if you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe common sense ... IF the GOP was covering for Obama and Clinton (which would never happen), there wouldn't have been EIGHT (one is still ongoing) investigations. There would have been one. The only reason there was a 2nd, and a 3rd, and a 4th, and a 5th, and a 6th, and a 7th, and an 8th, is because the GOP is still hoping to find some Benghazi related dirt they can pin on them.

After SEVEN investigations, they found nothing.

Nothing at all, Dreamer.

 

[Oldstyle]

How many investigations were there into the IRS scandal before "miraculously" they found some 30,000 of Lois Lerner's emails? When people are deliberately hiding evidence you keep investigating until you discover the truth. If you don't then you encourage governmental officials to lie and hide the truth from us in the future.

How long did watergate drag out?

Well over two years...and that was with a main stream media who chased the story like rabid dogs!

 

[Dot Com]

OldStyle!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

I have four reasons that anyone should be able to figure out as to why Benghazi is a scandal Just because the left doesn't give a crap about those four reasons doesn't make it any less so.

Seven GOP-led investigations say otherwise. Seven GOP-led investigations reveal you're nothing but a Dreamer clinging to a conspiracy like a Birther clings to Orly Taitz.

Don't really know how or why the Republicans came to whatever conclusion they came to. Do I trust them? Only slightly more then I trust democrats, which ain't much.

I would much rather remember what I saw and heard and make conclusions. I saw Obama immediately blame a video. I saw Rice go on at least four Sunday morning news show and state what was not true.

I know that the Ambassador was put in an unsafe situation and we don't know why. Could be that the Republicans are covering for gun running that the Ambassador was in charge of. For "national security" reasons.

What I know for sure is four people didn't have to die, to me that is a scandal. Regardless of who is running cover.

For SEVEN independent investigations to reach the same conclusions, if all SEVEN were lying -- would require the GOP to be providing cover for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

If you can't see the mortal gaping head wound in that, than you're a Dreamer who has gone too far off the Dreamer cliff. There is no hope in saving you.

I don't care if you barely trust the GOP -- there ain't no way in hell they're covering for Obama and Clinton.

And if you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe common sense ... IF the GOP was covering for Obama and Clinton (which would never happen), there wouldn't have been EIGHT (one is still ongoing) investigations. There would have been one. The only reason there was a 2nd, and a 3rd, and a 4th, and a 5th, and a 6th, and a 7th, and an 8th, is because the GOP is still hoping to find some Benghazi related dirt they can pin on them.

After SEVEN investigations, they found nothing.

Nothing at all, Dreamer.

Quite frankly, Faun...I don't know what investigations you're referring to. All of them have taken the Obama White House to task for the policies that led to security being compromised so badly that one of our Ambassadors was so obviously vulnerable to attack by terrorists.

 

[Oldstyle]

OldStyle!!!

Still have nothing to add to the conversation, Dottie? Must be time to play the race card then...or maybe bring up the "scientific study" that shows liberals are smarter than conservatives? Isn't that your usual routine?

 

[Faun]

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!

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting. It matters not what the CIA thought on day one, if your claim is even true. What matters, and what every investigation determined, was that the CIA was telling the administration that protests over a video sparked the attacks. And they told the administration that during the period the administration was publically declaring the video was the reason.

So there were no lies, Dreamer. You can repeat otherwise just like Birthers continue to cry that Obama BC is a fake, but your cries do not undermine 7 (so far) investigations.

I also note, you have no proof the administration pressured the CIA to push the protest narrative. The Rhodes email certainly doesn't indicate that. The Rhodes email only show the administration wanted Susan Rice to keep pushing the protest narrative. Susan Rice was not the CIA.

So it doesn't matter that what the CIA thought on day one needed to be changed all those times before their talking points were acceptable to the White House and the State Department? So you think for some reason that the CIA caved to THAT pressure yet somehow maintained integrity from there on out? What the Rhodes email demonstrates is the amount of effort and concern that the White House was devoting to maintaining a certain narrative in regards to Benghazi. It's the same thing with the Nuland emails. They demonstrate how freaked out the State Department was over the political fallout from their "normalization" decision to draw down security in Libya. The reclassification of the Rhodes emails to Top Secret show that the Obama White House even at that point understood that they needed to hide what it was that they'd just done. One can only assume that if they were going to the trouble of reclassifying emails like Rhodes that they were much more careful about how they communicated amongst themselves so that they wouldn't HAVE to hide more documents.

No, it doesn't matter because as they collected information, they came to the conclusion the attack was a protest sparked by an anti-Islamic video. That's what matters. And it matters because that was what the IC was feeding to the administration during the period the administration was publically pushing the protest narrative.

That's the story that the Administration is now pushing but the facts belie that, Faun. It was readily apparent from almost the very start that there was no protest in Benghazi that night. If there HAD been one don't you think Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the Consulate would have informed someone of that taking place? The truth is...an hour and a half before the attack starts...Christopher Stevens walks a Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the Consulate and the street is EMPTY! The protest gone wild theory was quickly discarded by everyone BUT the Obama White House! They kept that narrative going as long as they possibly could...until even the pro-Obama press corp were refusing to believe the bullshit that Jay Carney was feeding them.

Why on Earth should anyone believe your conspiracy theory over 7 GOP-led investigations? None of them found what you're claiming. They found the IC was pushing the protest narrative to the Obama administration until 9.24.2012. It was not, as you claim, "quickly discarded by everyone BUT the Obama White House" There's a record -- and the record shows that is simply not the case.

Dreamers lie to cling to their conspiracy.

 

[Faun]

And I ask once again, Faun...how many investigations took place before we even learned about the Rhodes emails?

Asked and answered. Also pointed out the Rhodes' email isn't the smoking gun you're praying it is.

 

[Dot Com]

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!

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting. It matters not what the CIA thought on day one, if your claim is even true. What matters, and what every investigation determined, was that the CIA was telling the administration that protests over a video sparked the attacks. And they told the administration that during the period the administration was publically declaring the video was the reason.

So there were no lies, Dreamer. You can repeat otherwise just like Birthers continue to cry that Obama BC is a fake, but your cries do not undermine 7 (so far) investigations.

I also note, you have no proof the administration pressured the CIA to push the protest narrative. The Rhodes email certainly doesn't indicate that. The Rhodes email only show the administration wanted Susan Rice to keep pushing the protest narrative. Susan Rice was not the CIA.

So it doesn't matter that what the CIA thought on day one needed to be changed all those times before their talking points were acceptable to the White House and the State Department? So you think for some reason that the CIA caved to THAT pressure yet somehow maintained integrity from there on out? What the Rhodes email demonstrates is the amount of effort and concern that the White House was devoting to maintaining a certain narrative in regards to Benghazi. It's the same thing with the Nuland emails. They demonstrate how freaked out the State Department was over the political fallout from their "normalization" decision to draw down security in Libya. The reclassification of the Rhodes emails to Top Secret show that the Obama White House even at that point understood that they needed to hide what it was that they'd just done. One can only assume that if they were going to the trouble of reclassifying emails like Rhodes that they were much more careful about how they communicated amongst themselves so that they wouldn't HAVE to hide more documents.

No, it doesn't matter because as they collected information, they came to the conclusion the attack was a protest sparked by an anti-Islamic video. That's what matters. And it matters because that was what the IC was feeding to the administration during the period the administration was publically pushing the protest narrative.

That's the story that the Administration is now pushing but the facts belie that, Faun. It was readily apparent from almost the very start that there was no protest in Benghazi that night. If there HAD been one don't you think Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the Consulate would have informed someone of that taking place? The truth is...an hour and a half before the attack starts...Christopher Stevens walks a Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the Consulate and the street is EMPTY! The protest gone wild theory was quickly discarded by everyone BUT the Obama White House! They kept that narrative going as long as they possibly could...until even the pro-Obama press corp were refusing to believe the bullshit that Jay Carney was feeding them.

Why on Earth should anyone believe your conspiracy theory over 7 GOP-led investigations? None of them found what you're claiming. They found the IC was pushing the protest narrative to the Obama administration until 9.24.2012. It was not, as you claim, "quickly discarded by everyone BUT the Obama White House" There's a record -- and the record shows that is simply not the case.

Dreamers lie to cling to their conspiracy.

^ that

Olstyle is a hack trying to perpetuate a non-event to damage HRC no doubt. Wonder how outraged he was w/ Cheney & W for the REAL 9-11 & vietraq resulting in what? 7,500 American deaths not counting the 1000's of Iraqi deaths

 

[Oldstyle]

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!

Your hypotheticals aren't even interesting. It matters not what the CIA thought on day one, if your claim is even true. What matters, and what every investigation determined, was that the CIA was telling the administration that protests over a video sparked the attacks. And they told the administration that during the period the administration was publically declaring the video was the reason.

So there were no lies, Dreamer. You can repeat otherwise just like Birthers continue to cry that Obama BC is a fake, but your cries do not undermine 7 (so far) investigations.

I also note, you have no proof the administration pressured the CIA to push the protest narrative. The Rhodes email certainly doesn't indicate that. The Rhodes email only show the administration wanted Susan Rice to keep pushing the protest narrative. Susan Rice was not the CIA.

So it doesn't matter that what the CIA thought on day one needed to be changed all those times before their talking points were acceptable to the White House and the State Department? So you think for some reason that the CIA caved to THAT pressure yet somehow maintained integrity from there on out? What the Rhodes email demonstrates is the amount of effort and concern that the White House was devoting to maintaining a certain narrative in regards to Benghazi. It's the same thing with the Nuland emails. They demonstrate how freaked out the State Department was over the political fallout from their "normalization" decision to draw down security in Libya. The reclassification of the Rhodes emails to Top Secret show that the Obama White House even at that point understood that they needed to hide what it was that they'd just done. One can only assume that if they were going to the trouble of reclassifying emails like Rhodes that they were much more careful about how they communicated amongst themselves so that they wouldn't HAVE to hide more documents.

No, it doesn't matter because as they collected information, they came to the conclusion the attack was a protest sparked by an anti-Islamic video. That's what matters. And it matters because that was what the IC was feeding to the administration during the period the administration was publically pushing the protest narrative.

That's the story that the Administration is now pushing but the facts belie that, Faun. It was readily apparent from almost the very start that there was no protest in Benghazi that night. If there HAD been one don't you think Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the Consulate would have informed someone of that taking place? The truth is...an hour and a half before the attack starts...Christopher Stevens walks a Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the Consulate and the street is EMPTY! The protest gone wild theory was quickly discarded by everyone BUT the Obama White House! They kept that narrative going as long as they possibly could...until even the pro-Obama press corp were refusing to believe the bullshit that Jay Carney was feeding them.

Why on Earth should anyone believe your conspiracy theory over 7 GOP-led investigations? None of them found what you're claiming. They found the IC was pushing the protest narrative to the Obama administration until 9.24.2012. It was not, as you claim, "quickly discarded by everyone BUT the Obama White House" There's a record -- and the record shows that is simply not the case.

Dreamers lie to cling to their conspiracy.

And I ask again...since it was so obvious that there was no protest...what would make the CIA stick with that scenario for that long?

Just a bunch of idiots over there at Langley? Is that your take on things? Or would a more logical explanation be that they bowed to the same pressure to change the original talking points a dozen times to maintain the bullshit that it was a protest that started the attack?

 

[Oldstyle]

And I ask once again, Faun...how many investigations took place before we even learned about the Rhodes emails?

Asked and answered. Also pointed out the Rhodes' email isn't the smoking gun you're praying it is.

Yet the Obama White House reclassified that email to hide it from Congress. Why, Faun?