Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The attack was the demonstration.
Wow, Spin City...
So the World Trade center, that was a "demonstration" too? How does this work exactly?
The attack was the demonstration.
Wow, Spin City...
So the World Trade center, that was a "demonstration" too? How does this work exactly?
The 9-11 jetliner attacks were not a spontaneous action. Neither was the coordinated attacks on our Embassies in 1998, or the bombing of that US warship.
You're lying again, Dreamer. It wasn't an "obviously" incorrect claim. It may be obvious now but it wasn't at the time. There were many conflicting reports, some saying it was a protest, others saying it wasn't. It was researched extensively by our intelligence community and within a few days, the best estimate they had was that it was a protest. The CIA was not the only department to believe it was a protest.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.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.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.
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?
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!
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
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.
Great.Prove that.Asked and answered. Also pointed out the Rhodes' email isn't the smoking gun you're praying it is.And I ask once again, Faun...how many investigations took place before we even learned about the Rhodes emails?
Yet the Obama White House reclassified that email to hide it from Congress. Why, Faun?
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?
You're lying again, Dreamer. It wasn't an "obviously" incorrect claim. It may be obvious now but it wasn't at the time. There were many conflicting reports, some saying it was a protest, others saying it wasn't. It was researched extensively by our intelligence community and within a few days, the best estimate they had was that it was a protest. The CIA was not the only department to believe it was a protest.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.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.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.
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?
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!
I know it sucks for you Dreamers to have 7 independent GOP-led investigations fail miserably to skewer Obama and Clinton, but life's a bitch. Time to move on to your next conspiracy or ride this one into crazy town like the Truthers and Birthers did.
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?
What a pity 7 GOP-led investigations reached a different conclusion than the tripe you Dreamers Push, eh?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.
Oh but he did know it. Panetta told him immediately that it was a terrorist attack.
My question is why the hell did they lie and tell the American people that it was a demonstration about a video??
Great.Prove that.Asked and answered. Also pointed out the Rhodes' email isn't the smoking gun you're praying it is.And I ask once again, Faun...how many investigations took place before we even learned about the Rhodes emails?
Yet the Obama White House reclassified that email to hide it from Congress. Why, Faun?
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?
Instead of getting proof from this Dreamer that the White House had the Rhodes email classified to keep it out of the hands of the Congress, I get feigned outrage.
Sorry, Dreamer, your feigned outrage does nothing for me to identify if you're being honest about Rhodes' email or not. Proof of your claim would work much better.
How was their best estimate "100% incorrect?" I dunno, maybe because it was produced by the same personnel who said there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq in 2002? That was also 100% incorrect.You're lying again, Dreamer. It wasn't an "obviously" incorrect claim. It may be obvious now but it wasn't at the time. There were many conflicting reports, some saying it was a protest, others saying it wasn't. It was researched extensively by our intelligence community and within a few days, the best estimate they had was that it was a protest. The CIA was not the only department to believe it was a protest.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.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?
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!
I know it sucks for you Dreamers to have 7 independent GOP-led investigations fail miserably to skewer Obama and Clinton, but life's a bitch. Time to move on to your next conspiracy or ride this one into crazy town like the Truthers and Birthers did.
Who was it that said it was a protest? In the initial confusion following the attacks it was labeled as one but that claim was rather quickly disproved by virtually EVERYONE who was there! So when the CIA did their "extensive research" into Benghazi how is it possible that they arrived at a "best estimate" that was 100% incorrect? Who was it that was pushing that claim that a protest took place before the attack other than the State Department and the White House?
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!
Nope, that's not what I claimed. If that's the conclusion you reached by what I wrote, it lends reasoning to why you think there's a scandal here even though 7 GOP-led investigations have concluded otherwise.Great.Prove that.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?
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?
Instead of getting proof from this Dreamer that the White House had the Rhodes email classified to keep it out of the hands of the Congress, I get feigned outrage.
Sorry, Dreamer, your feigned outrage does nothing for me to identify if you're being honest about Rhodes' email or not. Proof of your claim would work much better.
So you really ARE trying to claim that the White House didn't reclassify Ben Rhodes email? I suppose it just magically did that by itself? I hate to break this to you, Faun but the reclassification of the Rhodes email to Top Secret isn't in question at this point. The White House did it. Now your unenviable task is to explain why.
Great.Prove that.Asked and answered. Also pointed out the Rhodes' email isn't the smoking gun you're praying it is.And I ask once again, Faun...how many investigations took place before we even learned about the Rhodes emails?
Yet the Obama White House reclassified that email to hide it from Congress. Why, Faun?
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?
Instead of getting proof from this Dreamer that the White House had the Rhodes email classified to keep it out of the hands of the Congress, I get feigned outrage.
Sorry, Dreamer, your feigned outrage does nothing for me to identify if you're being honest about Rhodes' email or not. Proof of your claim would work much better.
Sorry, Dreamer, 7 GOP-led investigations have concluded the intelligence community provided the protest narrative regardless of what Panetta told Obama in the beginning.Your the dream pusher pal.
You just won't admitt that the administration knew it was a terrorist attack from the get go and they lied about it for weeks.
Panetta Obama Told Benghazi Was Terrorist Attack
Sorry, Dreamer, 7 GOP-led investigations have concluded the intelligence community provided the protest narrative regardless of what Panetta told Obama in the beginning.Your the dream pusher pal.
You just won't admitt that the administration knew it was a terrorist attack from the get go and they lied about it for weeks.
Panetta Obama Told Benghazi Was Terrorist Attack
The liar is you, Dreamer. You know he didn't lie about it since this is outlined in this GOP-led report (benghazi.report.pdf) on the matter. Yet you continue to maintain otherwise.Sorry, Dreamer, 7 GOP-led investigations have concluded the intelligence community provided the protest narrative regardless of what Panetta told Obama in the beginning.Your the dream pusher pal.
You just won't admitt that the administration knew it was a terrorist attack from the get go and they lied about it for weeks.
Panetta Obama Told Benghazi Was Terrorist Attack
Obama was told what happened and I want to know why he lied about it.
He knew it was a terrorist attack so why the hell lie and tell the American people it was a demonstration and why tell that lie for two fucking weeks??
You can't answer that and neither can I. The only thing I can think of is he lied because of his election campaign. How bout you??
The attack was the demonstration.
Wow, Spin City...
So the World Trade center, that was a "demonstration" too? How does this work exactly?
The 9-11 jetliner attacks were not a spontaneous action. Neither was the coordinated attacks on our Embassies in 1998, or the bombing of that US warship.
Great.Prove that.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?
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?
Instead of getting proof from this Dreamer that the White House had the Rhodes email classified to keep it out of the hands of the Congress, I get feigned outrage.
Sorry, Dreamer, your feigned outrage does nothing for me to identify if you're being honest about Rhodes' email or not. Proof of your claim would work much better.
White House e-mails on Benghazi stoke more questions
