"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Freewill]

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.

But he had an election to win.

 

[Freewill]

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?

Why not? 4 AMERICANS were killed on being a gay Ambassador, THAT IS WHY.

There have been other attacks on US interests before and during Obama, this is the ONLY one that has sparked this amount of investigation. I think we owe it to the parents of the four who died.

 

[BlindBoo]

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..."?

• Plumbers Crimes started much earlier than the Watergate break in.

1971

• June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers – the Defense Department’s secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later in the week.
  
  
• September 9, 1971: The White House “plumbers” unit – named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration – burglarizes a psychiatrist’s office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

I think your confusing posters. Personally I don't put much stock in media talking points from any American Administration. As far back as I can remember (to Nixon) none ever seemed trustworthy.

 

[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.

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?

Why not? 4 AMERICANS were killed on being a gay Ambassador, THAT IS WHY.

There have been other attacks on US interests before and during Obama, this is the ONLY one that has sparked this amount of investigation. I think we owe it to the parents of the four who died.

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?

Why not? 4 AMERICANS were killed on being a gay Ambassador, THAT IS WHY.

There have been other attacks on US interests before and during Obama, this is the ONLY one that has sparked this amount of investigation. I think we owe it to the parents of the four who died.

that obligation has been met 7 times.

I think YOU owe it to the parents to STFU and let them rest, and have closure .. so STFU you politically driven asshat ..
..

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Why not? 4 AMERICANS were killed on being a gay Ambassador, THAT IS WHY.

There have been other attacks on US interests before and during Obama, this is the ONLY one that has sparked this amount of investigation. I think we owe it to the parents of the four who died.

The gay rumors seem to have originated on Hillbuzz.com, the website of Kevin DuJan, who also believes that President Obama is gay. DuJan uses the very, very shaky sourcing of a “Serbian consulate employee [who] identified himself to me as ‘Dino’ and wouldn’t give me any more of a name than that, but told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that ‘it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual.’”

The story was picked up by a number of right-wing blogs, including Breitbart.com, which offers this explanation for why Stevens being gay would be at all relevant: “It just seems like one more way the Obama administration needlessly enraged the passions of protesters in that part of the world.” A blogger for the Examiner even speculates that Stevens was sent by Hillary Clinton as an “intentional provocation” to Libya.

Rumor-mongering surrounds Chris Stevens 8217 death - Salon.com

 

[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?

Why not? 4 AMERICANS were killed on being a gay Ambassador, THAT IS WHY.

There have been other attacks on US interests before and during Obama, this is the ONLY one that has sparked this amount of investigation. I think we owe it to the parents of the four who died.

This is the ONLY one to spark this amount of investigation because the RNC made the choice to use those grieving families as a political prop in numerous useless investigations that all came up with the same results. NO INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING. The GOP has reached an ethical low point, and should be ashamed. The parents of those four deserve many things. Mostly, they deserve to not be used as a right wing tool.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Come on, Bulldog...this has dragged on for as long as it has because the Obama people stonewalled the investigation of Benghazi before the 2012 elections.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How many investigations were conducted on the death of Pat Tillman and the subsequent lies and cover up?

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

Why not? 4 AMERICANS were killed on being a gay Ambassador, THAT IS WHY.

There have been other attacks on US interests before and during Obama, this is the ONLY one that has sparked this amount of investigation. I think we owe it to the parents of the four who died.

This is the ONLY one to spark this amount of investigation because the RNC made the choice to use those grieving families as a political prop in numerous useless investigations that all came up with the same results. NO INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING. The GOP has reached an ethical low point, and should be ashamed. The parents of those four deserve many things. Mostly, they deserve to not be used as a right wing tool.

Do you think those families deserved to be lied to by the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State, Bulldog? Because that's what took place when those four caskets were unloaded at Andrew's Air Force Base. That wasn't the GOP...that was Barry, Joe and Hillary.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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.

Come on, Bulldog...this has dragged on for as long as it has because the Obama people stonewalled the investigation of Benghazi before the 2012 elections.

You know better. The GOP knows better. Some right wing nuts just aren't able to let it go. Keep it up.......It illustrates the craziness of the right.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Why not? 4 AMERICANS were killed on being a gay Ambassador, THAT IS WHY.

There have been other attacks on US interests before and during Obama, this is the ONLY one that has sparked this amount of investigation. I think we owe it to the parents of the four who died.

This is the ONLY one to spark this amount of investigation because the RNC made the choice to use those grieving families as a political prop in numerous useless investigations that all came up with the same results. NO INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING. The GOP has reached an ethical low point, and should be ashamed. The parents of those four deserve many things. Mostly, they deserve to not be used as a right wing tool.

Do you think those families deserved to be lied to by the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State, Bulldog? Because that's what took place when those four caskets were unloaded at Andrew's Air Force Base. That wasn't the GOP...that was Barry, Joe and Hillary.

Last gasp of another dying conspiracy theory.

 

[Claudette]

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

Of course he can't explain it. Thats why he's bound a determined to keep spouting about how they didn't lie.

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. I heard them myself on TV for two weeks lying their asses off about Benghazi.

We all know they blamed it on a demonstration, a demonstration that by the way never took place at the consulate, about a video.

Faun is a blind idiot who just can't see the truth. Dreamer he is.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Can anyone show me any tea party investigations and outrage over the death of Pat Tillman and the subsequent lies and cover up?

I would love to think that this Benghazi thing is not politically motivated.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.
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.

Come on, Bulldog...this has dragged on for as long as it has because the Obama people stonewalled the investigation of Benghazi before the 2012 elections.

You know better. The GOP knows better. Some right wing nuts just aren't able to let it go. Keep it up.......It illustrates the craziness of the right.

I hate to point out the blatantly obvious, Bulldog but the Obama Administration now has a long history of stonewalling investigations into scandals. Fast & Furious, the IRS and Benghazi. It's what they DO.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So NO "Benghazi IS a scandal" devotees can show me where they complained about the Tillman fiasco?

REALLY?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. I heard them myself on TV for two weeks lying their asses off about Benghazi.

But you cannot provide one transcript of anyone from the administration lying about Benghazi. What you think you heard has no relationship with reality, substance, context or truth.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Come on, Bulldog...this has dragged on for as long as it has because the Obama people stonewalled the investigation of Benghazi before the 2012 elections.

You know better. The GOP knows better. Some right wing nuts just aren't able to let it go. Keep it up.......It illustrates the craziness of the right.

I hate to point out the blatantly obvious, Bulldog but the Obama Administration now has a long history of stonewalling investigations into scandals. Fast & Furious, the IRS and Benghazi. It's what they DO.

All phony investigations with nothing of note found in their final reports. It was a right wing strategy that worked for them for a while, but is not as effective in stirring up the crazies as it once was. Of course, the hard core brain dead will believe the histrionics were real from now on. I really miss the days when the GOP had integrity, and didn't pull all these childish stunts.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Come on, Bulldog...this has dragged on for as long as it has because the Obama people stonewalled the investigation of Benghazi before the 2012 elections.

You know better. The GOP knows better. Some right wing nuts just aren't able to let it go. Keep it up.......It illustrates the craziness of the right.

I hate to point out the blatantly obvious, Bulldog but the Obama Administration now has a long history of stonewalling investigations into scandals. Fast & Furious, the IRS and Benghazi. It's what they DO.

I think the real scandal is the phony investigations and trying to somehow link those to the Obama Administration these Republicans have pursued. How many convictions do they have?
Have they arrested that super villain Lois Lerner yet?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Clau 10352670

We all know they blamed it on a demonstration, a demonstration that by the way never took place at the consulate, about a video.

Intelligent and informed people don't "know that". There's two parts to what most of us know. The protests around the world were blamed on the video. The actual attacks in Benghazi were blamed on extremists not protesters. Reality is not that complicated if you are willing to accept it.

 

[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.

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!

It's already a given ... there can be another dozen investigations. Dreamers are going to drag this out until after the 2016 elections. It will then be brought to the forefront again when Hillary is running for re-election in 2020. The RWN strategy is transparent.