"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Freewill]

FW 10350052

What I know for sure is four people didn't have to die, to me that is a scandal

Every death that is not due to natural causes does not 'have to' happen.

Is every tragic death and injury that is noticeable politically and on a national scale a "scandal" to you?

Why did GW Bush's approval rating shoot upwards of forty percent to 92 percent immediately following the "scandal" of the September 2011 terrorist attacks?

Thousands of people on that morning didn't, as you say 'have to die'.

Well maybe not immediately but the left wing sure said that Bush could have stopped 9/11 for the years following.

Here's the difference, in my opinion. Who puts Americans in a country we just bombed the crap out of in order to remove their leader? Is there any chance that the disposed leader had some followers? Some that might wish revenge? Who would put an Ambassador in such a situation, or let him be in such a situation, without adequate protection? In my opinion only incompetent or uncaring boobs. My belief, this is just my opinion, is that they were running guns to Syria and that is why they were attacked. Either that or they had a high profile captive or there were those who were just pissed because we bombed the crap out of them.

Should Obama be impeached, no. Is it a scandal that should follow him, hell yes.

 

[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.

I have 5000 reasons why the Iraq War was a scandal. Just because the Right doesn't give a crap doesn't make it any less so.

Cute using our troops that way. You do understand that more have been lost in Afghanistan under Obama and his surge then under Bush? Do you want to make that an additional scandal for Obama?

War is war and I would have voted not to go to war, no one asked me. But we went and the prediction was many more casualties.

But putting men in dangerous situations without apparent reason seems to me to be fool hearty. That and putting them in harms way without adequate protection. Then lying about the situation. Why do people lie? Because they don't want you to know the truth.

 

[Freewill]

Bullshit.

No, the problem is that you want to take the whole discussion of demonstrations out of context.

There were demonstrations all over the world over this video in the week of this attack. Therefore, it was not a huge stretch to assume that the video was a contributing factor to this attack.

You see, the problem is you guys keep going back and forth about why this is a scandal. Is it a scandal beacuse there wasn't adequate security (not that 10 more guards could have done much against attackers armed with mortars and rocket launchers) or is a scandal because people in the Administration thought that the video was a factor in what they called an "Act of Terror" from the very beginning?

Or is it a scandal because the Weird Mormon Robot you guys nominated tried to ghoulishly make this a political issue and repeatedly got his magic-underwear clad ass handed to him when he did?

According to this site there were no protest prior to 9/11 of that year. There was one protest that day and Benghazi.

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, considering there were live video, maybe not directly to Washington, of the compound and it should have been well known that this was not just a protest, who brings mortars to a protest?

So who would assume that this was a protest over a video and what was gained by blaming it on a video? My contention that by doing so the administration flamed the riots.

Who would make such an assumption when everyone who saw the facts, as Obama should have, had to know it was an organized attack?

He did not tell the truth, Rice didn't tell the truth and that led to more riot. The question is, why did they say what they didn't know for sure was true?

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

That's not a question I, or you, has the answer to. What is known is that the CIA was pushing the protest narrative until 9.24.2012.

As far as a bunch of idiots at Langley, that isn't my position. I don't have the information they had which led them to construct the intelligence estimates they provided for the Obama administration. However, if it was due to incompetence within our intelligence community, how hard would that be to believe. Don't forget the excuse the previous administration used for being so wrong about WMD being in Iraq.

Why don't you have an answer to that question? How is it possible that the CIA stuck with an obviously incorrect claim that a protest turned violent for as long as they did? Libyan officials who were there stated there was no protest...the video recovered from the Consulate showed there was no protest...and the surviving Americans at Benghazi stated there was no protest? Yet with all of THAT, the CIA retained the protest angle until almost two weeks later? My explanation for that is that they were pressured to keep that narrative intact by the very same people who pressured them to change the original talking points over a dozen times back on day one!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

FW 10351170

Here's the difference, in my opinion. Who puts Americans in a country we just bombed the crap out of in order to remove their leader

Gadhafi was not 'their leader' in Benghazi. That city of half a million was targeted for annihilation by Gadhafi for being a rebel stronghold. Amb Stevens was a friend to the people of Benghazi and judgements were general that he was safe there with friendly libyan militias providing security. Stevens certainly made the judgment that it was concerning but safe enough there to have the Turkish Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, Unfortunately for Stevens it turned out to be deadly, but it is more political wrangling for the Romney camp to come out immediately swinging about blaming the deaths on a video - when from the President on down the deaths were not being blamed on the video.

Investigations into a security lapse or failure are par for the course in Washington. But normal practice is those investigations run their course over a long period of time when evidence and testimony can all be assessed as if in a court of law.

But what Romney did the night if the attack was dance on dead American bodies and acting as if he knew the results of a year long investigation in a matter of hours.

He immediately distorted a government cable into something that was not meant. Romney blamed his political opponent for the deaths of four Americans as if the terrorists had nothing to do with it.

Dems after 911 did not commit the same political distortion immediately following a much more deadly attack. Dems emphasized blaming the terror networks and supporter their president going after them with all that America could throw at them .

Then Bush squandered that patriotism and energy when he diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.

 

[Freewill]

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?

That's not a question I, or you, has the answer to. What is known is that the CIA was pushing the protest narrative until 9.24.2012.

As far as a bunch of idiots at Langley, that isn't my position. I don't have the information they had which led them to construct the intelligence estimates they provided for the Obama administration. However, if it was due to incompetence within our intelligence community, how hard would that be to believe. Don't forget the excuse the previous administration used for being so wrong about WMD being in Iraq.

Why don't you have an answer to that question? How is it possible that the CIA stuck with an obviously incorrect claim that a protest turned violent for as long as they did? Libyan officials who were there stated there was no protest...the video recovered from the Consulate showed there was no protest...and the surviving Americans at Benghazi stated there was no protest? Yet with all of THAT, the CIA retained the protest angle until almost two weeks later? My explanation for that is that they were pressured to keep that narrative intact by the very same people who pressured them to change the original talking points over a dozen times back on day one!

That and they were covering for what was really going on. Only one reason to tell people that which is not true, you don't want them knowing the truth,.

 

[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?

Prove that.

Are you serious, Faun? Now you're denying that the White House reclassified Ben Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and didn't release it to Congress when Congressional investigators asked for ALL documents pertaining to Benghazi? It took a Freedom of Information lawsuit by Justice Watch to bring that email to light and when it DID come to light Jay Carney had one of his more embarrassing days as White House Press Secretary as he tried to explain why Rhodes email prepping Susan Rice to go on those 7 Sunday morning talk shows wasn't really about Benghazi which is why it wasn't included in what the White House gave Congress. Carney basically got laughed out of the Press Room. Are you looking for the same treatment here?

You've never been able to answer my question as to WHY the White House reclassified that email if they weren't trying to hide it...are you now denying it ever happened?

 

[Freewill]

FW 10351170

Here's the difference, in my opinion. Who puts Americans in a country we just bombed the crap out of in order to remove their leader

Gadhafi was not 'their leader' in Benghazi. That city of half a million was targeted for annihilation by Gadhafi for being a rebel stronghold. Amb Stevens was a friend to the people of Benghazi and judgements were general that he was safe there with friendly libyan militias providing security. Stevens certainly made the judgment that it was concerning but safe enough there to have the Turkish Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, Unfortunately for Stevens it turned out to be deadly, but it is more political wrangling for the Romney camp to come out immediately swinging about blaming the deaths on a video - when from the President on down the deaths were not being blamed on the video.

Investigations into a security lapse or failure are par for the course in Washington. But normal practice is those investigations run their course over a long period of time when evidence and testimony can all be assessed as if in a court of law.

But what Romney did the night if the attack was dance on dead American bodies and acting as if he knew the results of a year long investigation in a matter of hours.

He immediately distorted a government cable into something that was not meant. Romney blamed his political opponent for the deaths of four Americans as if the terrorists had nothing to do with it.

Dems after 911 did not commit the same political distortion immediately following a much more deadly attack. Dems emphasized blaming the terror networks and supporter their president going after them with all that America could throw at them .

Then Bush squandered that patriotism and energy when he diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.

What in the hell does Romney have to do with what Obama told us?

Bush squandered nothing, the liberals went along with him because it would been political suicide not to. Once the dust had settled they turned on him. Typical of liberals.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10349692

the decision to take away 2/3's of Ambassador Steven's security team in light of what was taking place in Libya

What decision and subsequent reduction of "2/3 of Ambassador Steven's security team" are you referring to?

And now Notfooled is going to pretend that the State Department didn't reduce our security force in Libya by 2/3's? This is going to be one of those days here on USmessageboard...isn't it, Kiddies?

 

[BlindBoo]

Clay 10334829

Sure. After they told the American people the attack was caused by a demonstration over a video. They told that white lie for two weeks

Why can't you put up one transcript where they said the attack that resulted in the deaths of Stevens and Smith was caused by a demonstration over a video. They said plain as day after receiving CIA talking points advising them that it was extremists with possible ties to al Qaeda that brought heavy weapons to the consulate in Benghazi. Protesters killed no one anywhere in the world on 9/11/2012. It was extremists who came (protest or no protest) with heavy weapons and with possible ties to al Qaeda that were blamed for killing Stevens and Smith.

No WH official ever suggested that Woods and Dougherty were killed as a result of a protest turned violent. They were killed by mortar fire and the terrorists who fired it were never seen - protesting anything,

Here you go, FooledbyO

Susan Rice: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

Lets expand on that a bit.

"..our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

That still makes it unplanned and an uprising, it is fair to provide more context, but that context didn't change the underlying story. Other governments were already reporting it was a terrorist attack, the administration was still working on portraying it as a demonstration gone violent. Saying violent groups saw the demonstration and built it up doesn't change that, she's still describing it as uncoordinated, which no one but our administration thought. Or at least insisted they thought.

The several militants groups in Benghazi are capable of organizing such an attack in a matter of hours. I understand the GOP's desire to cast it in the light of an al Qaeda attack, but in hindsight it simply doesn't compare to the Embassy bombings in 1998, the USS Cole attack in 2000 or the attacks on NY and DC in 2001.

 

[BlindBoo]

Clay 10334829

Sure. After they told the American people the attack was caused by a demonstration over a video. They told that white lie for two weeks

Why can't you put up one transcript where they said the attack that resulted in the deaths of Stevens and Smith was caused by a demonstration over a video. They said plain as day after receiving CIA talking points advising them that it was extremists with possible ties to al Qaeda that brought heavy weapons to the consulate in Benghazi. Protesters killed no one anywhere in the world on 9/11/2012. It was extremists who came (protest or no protest) with heavy weapons and with possible ties to al Qaeda that were blamed for killing Stevens and Smith.

No WH official ever suggested that Woods and Dougherty were killed as a result of a protest turned violent. They were killed by mortar fire and the terrorists who fired it were never seen - protesting anything,

Here you go, FooledbyO

Susan Rice: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

Lets expand on that a bit.

"..our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

Except that as I've shown there was NO demonstration.

The attack was the demonstration.

 

[Oldstyle]

FW 10351170

Here's the difference, in my opinion. Who puts Americans in a country we just bombed the crap out of in order to remove their leader

Gadhafi was not 'their leader' in Benghazi. That city of half a million was targeted for annihilation by Gadhafi for being a rebel stronghold. Amb Stevens was a friend to the people of Benghazi and judgements were general that he was safe there with friendly libyan militias providing security. Stevens certainly made the judgment that it was concerning but safe enough there to have the Turkish Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, Unfortunately for Stevens it turned out to be deadly, but it is more political wrangling for the Romney camp to come out immediately swinging about blaming the deaths on a video - when from the President on down the deaths were not being blamed on the video.

Investigations into a security lapse or failure are par for the course in Washington. But normal practice is those investigations run their course over a long period of time when evidence and testimony can all be assessed as if in a court of law.

But what Romney did the night if the attack was dance on dead American bodies and acting as if he knew the results of a year long investigation in a matter of hours.

He immediately distorted a government cable into something that was not meant. Romney blamed his political opponent for the deaths of four Americans as if the terrorists had nothing to do with it.

Dems after 911 did not commit the same political distortion immediately following a much more deadly attack. Dems emphasized blaming the terror networks and supporter their president going after them with all that America could throw at them .

Then Bush squandered that patriotism and energy when he diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Dude, do you not understand that the "judgement" Stevens would be safe with security provided in large part by local militias is why Hillary Clinton's competence is being questioned following the deaths in Benghazi? Despite repeated requests from Stevens not to draw down his security personnel because the situation was becoming increasingly dangerous in Libya...the Clinton State Department pushed a policy referred to as "normalization" in which the goal was to claim that things were getting better in Libya...not worse and the proof of that was fewer American security forces needed to protect our diplomats. It was policy put forth by people who refuse to accept reality when it conflicts with what they WANT to be reality!

 

[Oldstyle]

Clay 10334829

Sure. After they told the American people the attack was caused by a demonstration over a video. They told that white lie for two weeks

Why can't you put up one transcript where they said the attack that resulted in the deaths of Stevens and Smith was caused by a demonstration over a video. They said plain as day after receiving CIA talking points advising them that it was extremists with possible ties to al Qaeda that brought heavy weapons to the consulate in Benghazi. Protesters killed no one anywhere in the world on 9/11/2012. It was extremists who came (protest or no protest) with heavy weapons and with possible ties to al Qaeda that were blamed for killing Stevens and Smith.

No WH official ever suggested that Woods and Dougherty were killed as a result of a protest turned violent. They were killed by mortar fire and the terrorists who fired it were never seen - protesting anything,

Here you go, FooledbyO

Susan Rice: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

Lets expand on that a bit.

"..our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

Except that as I've shown there was NO demonstration.

The attack was the demonstration.

Really? LOL

 

[Oldstyle]

OK...that last post by Boo is about as stupid as it gets...

The attack was the demonstration? Really, Boo? That's what you're going with?

 

[BlindBoo]

Are you kidding me? You show emails going back and forth between the White House and the intelligence community where people like Ben Rhodes and Victoria Nuland are DEMANDING that the intelligence community retain the "protest" aspect for "insulation" and the intelligence community is stating that the attacks were carried out by Al Queda affiliated terrorists and yet Susan Rice STILL goes out days later and says that to the best of their knowledge it was a protest over the video that was taken over by extremist elements. The only people that haven't been telling the truth throughout this has been the Obama White House! You can see by the email traffic you've provided that the White House is still exerting pressure on the intelligence people to give them the message they want...that this wasn't a failure of policy but was a spontaneous act...that this wasn't Al Queda.

So let me get this straight. Obama wanting to get a clarification on the role demonstrations played in this attack was a big scandal, but Cheney going down to the CIA to gin up evidence that Saddam had WMD"s wasn't.

Remember- unnecessary wars and torture are no big deal to Dog Style, but a riot that killed four people is.

That's right, so what if the Bush Administration spent over a year selling demonstrably false talking point (parroted by the all too compliant media). They were wrong about the protest and therefore were ........grrrrrrrr.....Obama!!!!!!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

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

Maybe it had information that would have tipped off the bad guys we knew who they were.

Ah, Joey? The email has now been released. We know what's in it!

What is this today...a competition among you on the Left to post the most ignorant post possible before noon? What's the prize?

 

[kaz]

Clay 10334829

Sure. After they told the American people the attack was caused by a demonstration over a video. They told that white lie for two weeks

Why can't you put up one transcript where they said the attack that resulted in the deaths of Stevens and Smith was caused by a demonstration over a video. They said plain as day after receiving CIA talking points advising them that it was extremists with possible ties to al Qaeda that brought heavy weapons to the consulate in Benghazi. Protesters killed no one anywhere in the world on 9/11/2012. It was extremists who came (protest or no protest) with heavy weapons and with possible ties to al Qaeda that were blamed for killing Stevens and Smith.

No WH official ever suggested that Woods and Dougherty were killed as a result of a protest turned violent. They were killed by mortar fire and the terrorists who fired it were never seen - protesting anything,

Here you go, FooledbyO

Susan Rice: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

Lets expand on that a bit.

"..our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

That still makes it unplanned and an uprising, it is fair to provide more context, but that context didn't change the underlying story. Other governments were already reporting it was a terrorist attack, the administration was still working on portraying it as a demonstration gone violent. Saying violent groups saw the demonstration and built it up doesn't change that, she's still describing it as uncoordinated, which no one but our administration thought. Or at least insisted they thought.

The several militants groups in Benghazi are capable of organizing such an attack in a matter of hours. I understand the GOP's desire to cast it in the light of an al Qaeda attack, but in hindsight it simply doesn't compare to the Embassy bombings in 1998, the USS Cole attack in 2000 or the attacks on NY and DC in 2001.

Yes, there are only Republicans and Democrats in the world. You correctly identified I am not a Democrat, ergo to the simplistic mind of a liberal, I can only be a Republican.

As for the ability to organize an attack in short order, ignoring that it happened on 9/11 is pathetically naive, you'd have a cow if Republicans ignored such a crucial fact, it still doesn't get the White House off the hook for anything they said. The whole world knew it was a terrorist attack except for one occupant of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.

 

[kaz]

The attack was the demonstration.

Wow, Spin City...

So the World Trade center, that was a "demonstration" too? How does this work exactly?

 

[kaz]

Clay 10334829 Why can't you put up one transcript where they said the attack that resulted in the deaths of Stevens and Smith was caused by a demonstration over a video. They said plain as day after receiving CIA talking points advising them that it was extremists with possible ties to al Qaeda that brought heavy weapons to the consulate in Benghazi. Protesters killed no one anywhere in the world on 9/11/2012. It was extremists who came (protest or no protest) with heavy weapons and with possible ties to al Qaeda that were blamed for killing Stevens and Smith.

No WH official ever suggested that Woods and Dougherty were killed as a result of a protest turned violent. They were killed by mortar fire and the terrorists who fired it were never seen - protesting anything,

Here you go, FooledbyO

Susan Rice: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

Lets expand on that a bit.

"..our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

Except that as I've shown there was NO demonstration.

The attack was the demonstration.

Really? LOL

I think he works for the White House.

 

[BlindBoo]

[

LOL,horse hockey.

There weren't 500,000 attackers.

4 men indeed held them at bay for hours.

Well, they really didn't.

The two CIA Mercenaries were killed by a mortar attack and Steven's died from smoke inhalations.

So the notion that if we just had a couple more paid mercenaries on the ground would have made the difference is just- silly.

Poor Joe, the battle lasted for hours.

2. Attack on the CIA Annex from Approximately 11 :56 p.m. until 1 :00 a.m.
The U.S. personnel evacuating the Mission facility were followed by some
of the attackers to the CIA Annex nearby.27 Although officially under cover, the
Annex was known by some in Benghazi as an American facility. At
approximately 11 :56 p.m. Benghazi time, sporadic arms fire and rocket-propelled
grenades (RPGs) were fired at the Annex.28 Over the next hour, the Annex took
sporadic small arms fire and RPG rounds, the security team returned fire, and the
attackers dispersed.29 It is likely U.S. personnel injured or possibly killed some of
the attackers during the exchange of fire. "[T]hey probably took casualties. I'm
quite sure they took casualties," according to the Chief ofBase.30

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

Attack on the CIA Annex at Approximately 5: 15 a.m.
At approximately 5:00 a.m. ]3enghazi time, the security team from Tripoli
arrived at the Annex just moments before the third attack that night. At
approximately 5: 15 a.m. Benghazi time, mortar rounds began to hit the Annex.
Two security officers, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed when they
took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy from the roof of the Annex. 36