"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[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?

Watergate? The capturing of Nixon's plumbers in the middle of a burglary was merely the tip of the iceberg of the investigation into Nixon's corrupt activities. They had evidence of a crime on day one. No correlation to the current phony GOP led witch hunts.

With all due respect, Boo...the "crime" that Richard Nixon committed didn't take place on day one of the Watergate break-in. His crimes were committed over the following months as his administration tried to stonewall the investigation leading up to the election that year.

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!

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.

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 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.

I understand you are trying to defeat Hillary now so you don't have to in 2016, but you're failing miserably by using hindsight as your best weapon.

It's a simple question, Boo. How could the CIA possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long when EVERYBODY involved was telling them there was no protest that night in Benghazi? Libyan officials made that clear. The streaming video made that clear. The surviving Americans who were there made that clear. Even a very dead Ambassador Stevens made it clear because he mentioned nothing about a protest taking place an hour and a half before the attack began when he walked that Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the consulate. Surely if there WAS a protest, Stevens would have noted it? On a red letter day like 9/11 when he was already deeply concerned about security levels? Yet your best answer is "I dunno..."?

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Great.

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

Of course there are more questions. Brain dead people who will not accept reality will always have more questions until their imaginary claims are justified. Just because crazies have questions doesn't mean there is any validity to their questions

I'm curious, Bulldog...when you speak of "brain dead people who will not accept reality"...do you somehow fail to note that is an accurate description of the Clinton State Department in regards to security for our diplomats in Libya leading up to the Benghazi attacks?

 

[2aguy]

Why didn't they interview the men on the ground at the site....?

 

[Siete]

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?

Great.

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

Of course there are more questions. Brain dead people who will not accept reality will always have more questions until their imaginary claims are justified. Just because crazies have questions doesn't mean there is any validity to their questions

I'm curious, Bulldog...when you speak of "brain dead people who will not accept reality"...do you somehow fail to note that is an accurate description of the Clinton State Department in regards to security for our diplomats in Libya leading up to the Benghazi attacks?

providing security isn't a fool proof job. Burglar alarms provide security but don't prevent robberies.

see how that works?

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Great.

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

Of course there are more questions. Brain dead people who will not accept reality will always have more questions until their imaginary claims are justified. Just because crazies have questions doesn't mean there is any validity to their questions

I'm curious, Bulldog...when you speak of "brain dead people who will not accept reality"...do you somehow fail to note that is an accurate description of the Clinton State Department in regards to security for our diplomats in Libya leading up to the Benghazi attacks?

providing security isn't a fool proof job. Burglar alarms provide security but don't prevent robberies.

see how that works?

If you had a business in a high crime area and employed 30 security guards to patrol and protect that enterprise...what would your reaction be if the amount of crime suddenly increased drastically? Would you lay off 19 of those security guards?

 

[2aguy]

providing security isn't a fool proof job. Burglar alarms provide security but don't prevent robberies.

see how that works?

Yeah, nice try. The problem.....the ambassaor requested more security several times...desperately, because the situation was becoming more and more dangerous....and he was ignored......and died because they did not have proper security....and refused to send in help......

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Watergate? The capturing of Nixon's plumbers in the middle of a burglary was merely the tip of the iceberg of the investigation into Nixon's corrupt activities. They had evidence of a crime on day one. No correlation to the current phony GOP led witch hunts.

With all due respect, Boo...the "crime" that Richard Nixon committed didn't take place on day one of the Watergate break-in. His crimes were committed over the following months as his administration tried to stonewall the investigation leading up to the election that year.

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!

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.

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 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.

I understand you are trying to defeat Hillary now so you don't have to in 2016, but you're failing miserably by using hindsight as your best weapon.

It's a simple question, Boo. How could the CIA possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long when EVERYBODY involved was telling them there was no protest that night in Benghazi? Libyan officials made that clear. The streaming video made that clear. The surviving Americans who were there made that clear. Even a very dead Ambassador Stevens made it clear because he mentioned nothing about a protest taking place an hour and a half before the attack began when he walked that Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the consulate. Surely if there WAS a protest, Stevens would have noted it? On a red letter day like 9/11 when he was already deeply concerned about security levels? Yet your best answer is "I dunno..."?

You make such a damming case. Why didn't all those republican led investigations pick upon some of your claims? Are you saying the leading republicans in charge of all those separate investigations are incompetent, or are they secretly Democrats who are helping with a cover up? Trey Goudy and Darrell Issa........Double agents for the DNC. Someone should investigate that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Because THAT is essentially what Hillary Clinton's State Department DID!

 

[Faun]

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?

Watergate? The capturing of Nixon's plumbers in the middle of a burglary was merely the tip of the iceberg of the investigation into Nixon's corrupt activities. They had evidence of a crime on day one. No correlation to the current phony GOP led witch hunts.

With all due respect, Boo...the "crime" that Richard Nixon committed didn't take place on day one of the Watergate break-in. His crimes were committed over the following months as his administration tried to stonewall the investigation leading up to the election that year.

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!

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.

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 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.

I understand you are trying to defeat Hillary now so you don't have to in 2016, but you're failing miserably by using hindsight as your best weapon.

It's a simple question, Boo. How could the CIA possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long when EVERYBODY involved was telling them there was no protest that night in Benghazi? Libyan officials made that clear. The streaming video made that clear. The surviving Americans who were there made that clear. Even a very dead Ambassador Stevens made it clear because he mentioned nothing about a protest taking place an hour and a half before the attack began when he walked that Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the consulate. Surely if there WAS a protest, Stevens would have noted it? On a red letter day like 9/11 when he was already deeply concerned about security levels? Yet your best answer is "I dunno..."?

It's all outlined in the report from the 7th investigation. I provided a link to it in my last post.

By the way ... I'm still waiting for that proof of yours that the White House classified Rhodes' email so that Congress couldn't see it ....

 

[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?

Watergate? The capturing of Nixon's plumbers in the middle of a burglary was merely the tip of the iceberg of the investigation into Nixon's corrupt activities. They had evidence of a crime on day one. No correlation to the current phony GOP led witch hunts.

With all due respect, Boo...the "crime" that Richard Nixon committed didn't take place on day one of the Watergate break-in. His crimes were committed over the following months as his administration tried to stonewall the investigation leading up to the election that year.

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!

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.

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 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.

I understand you are trying to defeat Hillary now so you don't have to in 2016, but you're failing miserably by using hindsight as your best weapon.

It's a simple question, Boo. How could the CIA possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long when EVERYBODY involved was telling them there was no protest that night in Benghazi? Libyan officials made that clear. The streaming video made that clear. The surviving Americans who were there made that clear. Even a very dead Ambassador Stevens made it clear because he mentioned nothing about a protest taking place an hour and a half before the attack began when he walked that Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the consulate. Surely if there WAS a protest, Stevens would have noted it? On a red letter day like 9/11 when he was already deeply concerned about security levels? Yet your best answer is "I dunno..."?

You make such a damming case. Why didn't all those republican led investigations pick upon some of your claims? Are you saying the leading republicans in charge of all those separate investigations are incompetent, or are they secretly Democrats who are helping with a cover up? Trey Goudy and Darrell Issa........Double agents for the DNC. Someone should investigate that.

When you've got an Administration that's actively working to hide the truth from Congress...as the Obama White House did when they reclassified the Ben Rhodes email to Top Secret...should it surprise anyone that investigations DON'T reveal the truth? Take a good hard look at the White House's stance during those early investigations, Bulldog. They were declaring that they had given Congress everything that they had on Benghazi when we now know that was not the case. They lied to Congress and they lied to the American people. That's why this has dragged out for as long as it has!

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Great.

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

Of course there are more questions. Brain dead people who will not accept reality will always have more questions until their imaginary claims are justified. Just because crazies have questions doesn't mean there is any validity to their questions

I'm curious, Bulldog...when you speak of "brain dead people who will not accept reality"...do you somehow fail to note that is an accurate description of the Clinton State Department in regards to security for our diplomats in Libya leading up to the Benghazi attacks?

Of course there were mistakes made which were duly noted in ALL the reports from right wing investigations. Oddly, the specific claim you make is not listed. I wonder why.

 

[Siete]

providing security isn't a fool proof job. Burglar alarms provide security but don't prevent robberies.

see how that works?

Yeah, nice try. The problem.....the ambassaor requested more security several times...desperately, because the situation was becoming more and more dangerous....and he was ignored......and died because they did not have proper security....and refused to send in help......

more security ... yeah right.

If 25 armed guards were surrounding Stevens and some raghead blew up the entire building all 25 would die ... in 1983 220 Marines prove that.

 

[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?

Watergate? The capturing of Nixon's plumbers in the middle of a burglary was merely the tip of the iceberg of the investigation into Nixon's corrupt activities. They had evidence of a crime on day one. No correlation to the current phony GOP led witch hunts.

With all due respect, Boo...the "crime" that Richard Nixon committed didn't take place on day one of the Watergate break-in. His crimes were committed over the following months as his administration tried to stonewall the investigation leading up to the election that year.

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!

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.

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 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.

I understand you are trying to defeat Hillary now so you don't have to in 2016, but you're failing miserably by using hindsight as your best weapon.

It's a simple question, Boo. How could the CIA possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long when EVERYBODY involved was telling them there was no protest that night in Benghazi? Libyan officials made that clear. The streaming video made that clear. The surviving Americans who were there made that clear. Even a very dead Ambassador Stevens made it clear because he mentioned nothing about a protest taking place an hour and a half before the attack began when he walked that Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the consulate. Surely if there WAS a protest, Stevens would have noted it? On a red letter day like 9/11 when he was already deeply concerned about security levels? Yet your best answer is "I dunno..."?

It's all outlined in the report from the 7th investigation. I provided a link to it in my last post.

By the way ... I'm still waiting for that proof of yours that the White House classified Rhodes' email so that Congress couldn't see it ....

I take it that you have seen the Rhodes email, Faun? That was reclassified to a Top Secret status supposedly for national security reasons. So would you like to take a crack at telling me what is in that exchange between Rhodes and Rice that in any way would endanger national security? What is in THAT email that would make it a sensitive national security issue that even Congress wouldn't be allowed to see?

 

[Faun]

Because THAT is essentially what Hillary Clinton's State Department DID!

"Essentially"

Rightwingnut code word for -- can't prove it, but not going to stop believing because it's a Liberal and they have got to be guilty somehow.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Watergate? The capturing of Nixon's plumbers in the middle of a burglary was merely the tip of the iceberg of the investigation into Nixon's corrupt activities. They had evidence of a crime on day one. No correlation to the current phony GOP led witch hunts.

With all due respect, Boo...the "crime" that Richard Nixon committed didn't take place on day one of the Watergate break-in. His crimes were committed over the following months as his administration tried to stonewall the investigation leading up to the election that year.

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.

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 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.

I understand you are trying to defeat Hillary now so you don't have to in 2016, but you're failing miserably by using hindsight as your best weapon.

It's a simple question, Boo. How could the CIA possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long when EVERYBODY involved was telling them there was no protest that night in Benghazi? Libyan officials made that clear. The streaming video made that clear. The surviving Americans who were there made that clear. Even a very dead Ambassador Stevens made it clear because he mentioned nothing about a protest taking place an hour and a half before the attack began when he walked that Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the consulate. Surely if there WAS a protest, Stevens would have noted it? On a red letter day like 9/11 when he was already deeply concerned about security levels? Yet your best answer is "I dunno..."?

You make such a damming case. Why didn't all those republican led investigations pick upon some of your claims? Are you saying the leading republicans in charge of all those separate investigations are incompetent, or are they secretly Democrats who are helping with a cover up? Trey Goudy and Darrell Issa........Double agents for the DNC. Someone should investigate that.

When you've got an Administration that's actively working to hide the truth from Congress...as the Obama White House did when they reclassified the Ben Rhodes email to Top Secret...should it surprise anyone that investigations DON'T reveal the truth? Take a good hard look at the White House's stance during those early investigations, Bulldog. They were declaring that they had given Congress everything that they had on Benghazi when we now know that was not the case. They lied to Congress and they lied to the American people. That's why this has dragged out for as long as it has!

Wrong on so many counts. This dragged out for so long because the RNC and fox believed it was a way to keep their base stirred up. They were right, and there would be even more investigations if the majority of dittoheads had a stomach for it. Nothing more to it.

 

[Oldstyle]

providing security isn't a fool proof job. Burglar alarms provide security but don't prevent robberies.

see how that works?

Yeah, nice try. The problem.....the ambassaor requested more security several times...desperately, because the situation was becoming more and more dangerous....and he was ignored......and died because they did not have proper security....and refused to send in help......

more security ... yeah right.

If 25 armed guards were surrounding Stevens and some raghead blew up the entire building all 25 would die ... in 1983 220 Marines prove that.

But our consulate wasn't bombed...was it, Siete? It was attacked by 100 to 150 Al Queda affiliated terrorists who set fire to the Ambassador's quarters to smoke him out of the "safe room" he had gone to. The question is not whether the previous security levels would have protected Stevens from a bomb attack...it's whether the previous security levels would have protected him from the attack that occurred.

 

[Siete]

How long did watergate drag out?

Watergate? The capturing of Nixon's plumbers in the middle of a burglary was merely the tip of the iceberg of the investigation into Nixon's corrupt activities. They had evidence of a crime on day one. No correlation to the current phony GOP led witch hunts.

With all due respect, Boo...the "crime" that Richard Nixon committed didn't take place on day one of the Watergate break-in. His crimes were committed over the following months as his administration tried to stonewall the investigation leading up to the election that year.

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 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.

I understand you are trying to defeat Hillary now so you don't have to in 2016, but you're failing miserably by using hindsight as your best weapon.

It's a simple question, Boo. How could the CIA possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long when EVERYBODY involved was telling them there was no protest that night in Benghazi? Libyan officials made that clear. The streaming video made that clear. The surviving Americans who were there made that clear. Even a very dead Ambassador Stevens made it clear because he mentioned nothing about a protest taking place an hour and a half before the attack began when he walked that Turkish diplomat out to the front gates of the consulate. Surely if there WAS a protest, Stevens would have noted it? On a red letter day like 9/11 when he was already deeply concerned about security levels? Yet your best answer is "I dunno..."?

You make such a damming case. Why didn't all those republican led investigations pick upon some of your claims? Are you saying the leading republicans in charge of all those separate investigations are incompetent, or are they secretly Democrats who are helping with a cover up? Trey Goudy and Darrell Issa........Double agents for the DNC. Someone should investigate that.

When you've got an Administration that's actively working to hide the truth from Congress...as the Obama White House did when they reclassified the Ben Rhodes email to Top Secret...should it surprise anyone that investigations DON'T reveal the truth? Take a good hard look at the White House's stance during those early investigations, Bulldog. They were declaring that they had given Congress everything that they had on Benghazi when we now know that was not the case. They lied to Congress and they lied to the American people. That's why this has dragged out for as long as it has!

Wrong on so many counts. This dragged out for so long because the RNC and fox believed it was a way to keep their base stirred up. They were right, and there would be even more investigations if the majority of dittoheads had a stomach for it. Nothing more to it.

the RW "base" has let it go, the RW IDIOTS, not so much.

 

[Oldstyle]

Because THAT is essentially what Hillary Clinton's State Department DID!

"Essentially"

Rightwingnut code word for -- can't prove it, but not going to stop believing because it's a Liberal and they have got to be guilty somehow.

Do you now want to argue that the State Department DIDN'T draw down the number of US security officers in Libya from 30 to 9, Faun? You won't concede ANYTHING today...will you?

 

[BULLDOG]

providing security isn't a fool proof job. Burglar alarms provide security but don't prevent robberies.

see how that works?

Yeah, nice try. The problem.....the ambassaor requested more security several times...desperately, because the situation was becoming more and more dangerous....and he was ignored......and died because they did not have proper security....and refused to send in help......

more security ... yeah right.

If 25 armed guards were surrounding Stevens and some raghead blew up the entire building all 25 would die ... in 1983 220 Marines prove that.

But our consulate wasn't bombed...was it, Siete? It was attacked by 100 to 150 Al Queda affiliated terrorists who set fire to the Ambassador's quarters to smoke him out of the "safe room" he had gone to. The question is not whether the previous security levels would have protected Stevens from a bomb attack...it's whether the previous security levels would have protected him from the attack that occurred.

You're absolutely right. The precautions were not enough to prevent the things that happened. Are you suggesting that every one of our previous embassies that were attacked should be the subject of repeated right wing investigations? If not, why? They have all been tragic events, but what's different about this one?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

So they spontaneously attacked our embassy on 9/11. The date they attacked the world trade center, which was the date they attacked the African embassies, which is the date they like to plan other attacks. On that date, a hundred fifty men spontaneously attacked a US mission and overran seals and marines. You actually believe that.

Don't take telemarketing calls or visit time shares. Seriously.

1. Attack on the U.S. Temporary Mission Facility at Approximately 9:40p.m.
At approximately 9:40p.m. Benghazi time, on September 11, 2012, dozens
of attackers easily gained access to the U.S. Temporary Mission Facility
(hereinafter "the TMF," "the Mission facility," or "the Mission compound") by
scaling and then opening the front vehicle gate.4 Over the course ofthe entire
attack on the TMF, at least 60 different attackers entered the U.S. compound and
can be seen on the surveillance video recovered from the Mission facility. 5 The
attackers moved unimpeded throughout the compound, entering and exiting
buildings at wiJl.

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