C B S Helped Cover-Up Benghazi

[depotoo]

Clinton Benghazi Testimony - What does it matter? - YouTube

She means, "It's very disappointing that this is being blamed on us, instead of the video, which was our story to begin with."

And people think this cow would be a good President?

She's not a "cow" and she will make a great President.

Even better since most of George W. Bush's complete fuck ups will be fixed.

Sallow, as you well know by now, if you have cared enough to follow this. Many times they asked for more security, yet were denied. They then went national with a lie that it all had to do with a video. That is the disgrace here. Plain and simple. If they had just listened to this ambassador and the others there, including a security expert, asking for more security, there may have been a different outcome. And then to make matters worse, they lied about it all in the beginning, rather than state we will find out what happened. Particularly egregious was the denial of more security and actually removing security instead... and then to point to a video that had nothing to do with it.

 

[Sallow]

She means, "It's very disappointing that this is being blamed on us, instead of the video, which was our story to begin with."

And people think this cow would be a good President?

She's not a "cow" and she will make a great President.

Even better since most of George W. Bush's complete fuck ups will be fixed.

Sallow, as you well know by now, if you have cared enough to follow this. Many times they asked for more security, yet were denied. They then went national with a lie that it all had to do with a video. That is the disgrace here. Plain and simple. If they had just listened to this ambassador and the others there, including a security expert, asking for more security, there may have been a different outcome. And then to make matters worse, they lied about it all in the beginning, rather than state we will find out what happened. Particularly egregious was the denial of more security and actually removing security instead... and then to point to a video that had nothing to do with it.

Who's "they", exactly?

Ambassador Stevens initially declined additional security than had requested more.

What exactly happened between those times?

What the disgrace is blaming an American President for a terrorist attack.

That's generally what Conservatives do to opponents. Liberals generally blame the foreign enemy.

But lets get into the weeds with this..

Why were the stories of the CIA holding Libyan prisoners not followed up?

Why were the CIA allowed to manage the Talking Points?

What is the CIA doing at a Diplomatic Mission?

You guys even bother asking these questions?

Perhaps it's the reason our consulates and embassies get targeted in the first place.

Spooks are illegal in every nation.

Or did you know that?

 

[depotoo]

She's not a "cow" and she will make a great President.

Even better since most of George W. Bush's complete fuck ups will be fixed.

Sallow, as you well know by now, if you have cared enough to follow this. Many times they asked for more security, yet were denied. They then went national with a lie that it all had to do with a video. That is the disgrace here. Plain and simple. If they had just listened to this ambassador and the others there, including a security expert, asking for more security, there may have been a different outcome. And then to make matters worse, they lied about it all in the beginning, rather than state we will find out what happened. Particularly egregious was the denial of more security and actually removing security instead... and then to point to a video that had nothing to do with it.

Who's "they", exactly?

Ambassador Stevens initially declined additional security than had requested more.

What exactly happened between those times?

What the disgrace is blaming an American President for a terrorist attack.

That's generally what Conservatives do to opponents. Liberals generally blame the foreign enemy.

But lets get into the weeds with this..

Why were the stories of the CIA holding Libyan prisoners not followed up?

Why were the CIA allowed to manage the Talking Points?

What is the CIA doing at a Diplomatic Mission?

You guys even bother asking these questions?

Perhaps it's the reason our consulates and embassies get targeted in the first place.

Spooks are illegal in every nation.

Or did you know that?

you see, you have not followed the hearings on this, listened to the witnesses, read the memos, the requests. Read the talking points and how the CIA did not agree with them. Nor have you thought of how sad it was that Sean Smith, that very day, when he saw photos being taken of the compound, sickly joke to his online playing partners that could this be the day he is finally killed, because he knew how bad the situation was and nothing was being done about it. And hours later he was just that. Killed.

Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi - ABC News
U.S. official sought more security for Benghazi post ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments.pdf

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/8-2-12-Memo.pdf
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/8-20-12-Memo.pdf
Decisions at more senior State Department levels influenced diplomatic security actions: Diplomatic Security Bureau officials testified that the decision by Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to approve a continued U.S. presence that exempted the mission site from security requirements restricted their ability to assign security agents. Officials testified that because Benghazi was not designated as a permanent mission, they had to rely mainly on temporary assignments to address security needs instead of assigning dedicated agents through the normal process. [34] Diplomatic Security officials testified that they did raise concerns about the problems this process created to more senior State Department officials in the months prior to the attack. [35]

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Benghazi-ARB-Majority-Staff-Report2.pdf

 

[PainefulTruth]

C'mon progs....surely your attacks on Fox News haven't left you unable to defend the leftist cowards that make up the rest of the MSM....let's hear a sterling defense of the alphabet networks while they lie through their teeth to you and you LIKE IT. Your side can't exist without serial liars....there isn't a democrat/prog who's told you the truth about anything and you couldn't care less.

What exactly is there to defend?

What's laughable is that out of all the terrorist attacks on this nation, for some really strange reason, conservatives are focusing on this one.

There were nearly 3000 people killed at the world trade center and pentagon.

There were over 168 people killed Murrah Building in Oklahoma.

There have been over 160 terrorist attacks overseas since 1980 including one that killed 250 marines in Lebanon.

And this?

This is the one that conservatives felt there something was terribly wrong about. One that has more media attention and possibly hearings than any one of those attacks. One that the conservative Presidential candidate felt the need to criticize WHILE IT WAS ONGOING.

You gotta be kidding, more than 9-11?!? Even Democrats were on board for that, unanimously in the Congress, until they found they couldn't blame the Republicans for it. But not to worry, just blame Bush.

Cheney said Benghazi was the worst terrorist attack in his lifetime.

And who are you folks blaming? Al Qaeda? Nope. You are blaming the American President.

President Obama.

We're blaming him for sticking his head in the sand and, like every other problem that pops up, claiming ignorance. Cheney's right in so far as our turning our backs on our own. You can bet if the Ben Laden or Capt. Philips operations had gone sideways, Obama wouldn't have known a thing about it.

But this is nothing new.

Only now..the theocrats are no longer outside looking in.

They are NOW Inside the government.

Theocracy and socialism are the same tactics and useful idiots under different brands, and with the same goal--getting their ideas of personal behavior to be mandated by law.

I think I've uncovered my first Democrat operative here. It didn't take long. I'm sure when you're hangin' out with your buds you style yourself as a hired gun. I think your gun needs some Viagra®.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oops!

David Brock Calls On CBS To Retract Faulty Benghazi Story | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

[mamooth]

You mean CBS (better know as "Conservative Broadcast Network") used a fabricated story from an unvetted witness just to hurt Obama? And all of the conservatives support the big lie? What a surprise.

Ethics tests for the conservatives now. Will even one of them renounce their BFFs at CBS for fabricating the story, or renounce FOX for breathlessly repeating the fake story?

 

[BullKurtz]

You mean CBS (better know as "Conservative Broadcast Network") used a fabricated story from an unvetted witness just to hurt Obama? And all of the conservatives support the big lie? What a surprise.

Ethics tests for the conservatives now. Will even one of them renounce their BFFs at CBS for fabricating the story, or renounce FOX for breathlessly repeating the fake story?

I believe you meant CBS (communist broadcast network) who interviewed an ex-Brit SAS operator who was there and told the truth about the gutless Obama/Hillary traitors who would not send help to their own because of the impending election. To think your vote counts the same as mine makes me want to HURL.

 

[BullKurtz]

Oops!

David Brock Calls On CBS To Retract Faulty Benghazi Story | Blog | Media Matters for America

Media Mutters should demand Brock hang himself instead of trying to save the Barry Bunch. They're despicable cowards and traitors and now the whole world knows it.

 

[daveman]

Oops!

David Brock Calls On CBS To Retract Faulty Benghazi Story | Blog | Media Matters for America

IS MM ever going to retract any of its faulty stories?

No?

Then they can eat shit.

 

[daveman]

You mean CBS (better know as "Conservative Broadcast Network") used a fabricated story from an unvetted witness just to hurt Obama? And all of the conservatives support the big lie? What a surprise.

Ethics tests for the conservatives now. Will even one of them renounce their BFFs at CBS for fabricating the story, or renounce FOX for breathlessly repeating the fake story?

You'd claim water is dry if you thought it would make Obama look good.

 

[depotoo]

You mean CBS (better know as "Conservative Broadcast Network") used a fabricated story from an unvetted witness just to hurt Obama? And all of the conservatives support the big lie? What a surprise.

Ethics tests for the conservatives now. Will even one of them renounce their BFFs at CBS for fabricating the story, or renounce FOX for breathlessly repeating the fake story?

You'd claim water is dry if you thought it would make Obama look good.

I thiink it interesting his links' use of the word 'faulty' rather than 'false'. A very measured response. You and I both know there is a reason for that... They simply didn't like the truth coming out.