Dear GOP blog trolls: Drop Benghazi, Nobody Cares About Manufactuired Old News

[francoHFW]

No lies, no coverup, no delays, all that could be done was done- we don't know the attackers motives, but the CIA STILL thinks the video was the trigger. So what does all your STUPID BS MATTER?!?

 

[Iceweasel]

Hillary does not care what caused the death of 4 Americans at Benghazi.
Prior to the attack, Ambassador Stevens had requested an increase of security personnel at Benghazi which was denied. Who approved the denial?

Who was responsible for failing to immediately send military help to Benghazi? The Warrior Ethos demands this. Obviously, no one but the military understood it. The civilian bureaucrats certainly did not.

FYI-Stevens was offered security personnel for the SECOND time, by Gen. Ham just 2 weeks prior to the attack, and Stevens turned it down....read the hearings notes....

He could possibly be here today, if he had said Yes to the security personnel offered....

The other thing to NOTE is the security personnel that the Embassy was requesting prior to the attack, was for more INTELLIGENCE personnel, not armed guards, they felt their security could be stronger with more intelligence AGENTS on the ground there...

CIA had a full annex of intelligence agents on the ground in benghazi...but they still were caught off guard....so who knows if the added security intelligence agents would have even helped?

Stevens did not turn down an offer for extra security. That is a report from some unknown official floated to provide cover for Hillary. The source of that lie cannot be accurately assessed, simply "Anonymous White House Official".

That sounded like bullshit to me and contrary to every report I've heard. It's probably making the rounds on the lib sites and they won't question it.

 

[francoHFW]

McGuirk- Son of Corc (heart)=Not too smart lol...

 

[Esmeralda]

Funny how a liberal keeps using those words "witch hunt." And no, Benghazi won't be dropped, people will be prosecuted. End of story.

You people are seriously delusional.

 

[francoHFW]

CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

 

[mudwhistle]

No lies, no coverup, no delays, all that could be done was done- we don't know the attackers motives, but the CIA STILL thinks the video was the trigger. So what does all your STUPID BS MATTER?!?

That is another lie.

That video cannot be proved as the cause because nobody has questioned any of the attackers. At the time the idea was circulated, on September 11th 2012, they didn't even know for sure who attacked ambassador Stevens.

We've heard several excuses, and several versions of what happened. First it was a spontaneous protest, then it became an act of terror in protest of a video, and then finally it was admitted it was an armed assault. Rumors abound and the White House has done nothing to tamp them down other than obstructing the investigation by hiding witnesses and withholding evidence. The fact that it was 911 didn't seem to register, I'm wondering if these White House officials find it difficult to grab their asses with both hands free.

The point is this; We just had a similar threat in Yemen, so the embassy there was closed. The consulate in Benghazi had been attacked twice before and no extra security was granted. The consulate was not closed. The State Department dropped the ball and left their people in harms way without any support or contingency plan.

Even if the video was the trigger, it doesn't change any of this. However, according to the email that have just been discovered, the video was simply dreamed up as an excuse and used before any investigation was conducted. It is an example of the White House spreading rumors without any basis or facts to support them. It's like Obama telling Bill O'Reilly before the Super Bowl that an IRS investigation that was ongoing would not find a smidgen of corruption, even though they already admitted to these illegals acts being conducted by evil rouge agents in Cincinnati. Besides, how would Obama know there was no wrongdoing, unless he was already privy to evidence in a closed investigation, clear evidence of obstruction of justice and tampering with an ongoing investigation.

One only need open ones' own eyes and one will see a steady pattern in every one of these very real and very serious scandals.

 

[francoHFW]

EXACTLY- But only YOUR heroes and fellow dupes are SURE the video was irrelevant, that the attackers were Al-Qaeda directed, etc etc. So what does your BS MATTER until the attackers are caught? And even then?

 

[mudwhistle]

EXACTLY- But only YOUR heroes and fellow dupes are SURE the video was irrelevant, that the attackers were Al-Qaeda directed, etc etc. So what does your BS MATTER until the attackers are caught? And even then?

There were several reasons and a video isn't one of them.

The problem is all of the eye witnesses are either dead or in hiding.

 

[francoHFW]

How the hell are you sure the video was irrelevant lol? I tought we had a breakthrough there for a second- then you snap back to the brainwash lol...

And of course it was an armed assault, known from the get-go. Is that the RW goal? Duh.

 

[hortysir]

EXACTLY- But only YOUR heroes and fellow dupes are SURE the video was irrelevant, that the attackers were Al-Qaeda directed, etc etc. So what does your BS MATTER until the attackers are caught? And even then?

There were several reasons and a video isn't one of them.

The problem is all of the eye witnesses are either dead or in hiding.

or being hidden

 

[francoHFW]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz tin foilers...

 

[peach174]

How the hell are you sure the video was irrelevant lol? I tought we had a breakthrough there for a second- then you snap back to the brainwash lol...

And of course it was an armed assault, known from the get-go. Is that the RW goal? Duh.

When they fist mentioned the video, I went to it to watch. It has just a few thousand hits.
The more they talked about over the next day the hits became several thousand hits.
What happened in Benghazi had nothing to do with that video. The e-mail said it was a planed terrorist attack.

Behind the Benghazi email: Prop up the prez?

Actual e -mail
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

Jay Carney is spinning it.
If it was about all the other embassies like he is saying, then it should never have been in the Benghazi documents that they asked for.

After the fact they are beefing up security.
Their spin? It Repubs cut the funding.
How can they add more security if there is no money like they said.

 

[peach174]

It says in that e mail;

First we have significantly increased security at our diplomatic posts around the globe, with additional resources form across the government.

If they could do that after the attacks, then they could have done the same thing when Stevens kept asking them for additional security, but nothing was answered back to them and they never sent them any.

We need to know why they never pulled them out of there like the Brits and Red Cross did.

 

[The T]

EXACTLY- But only YOUR heroes and fellow dupes are SURE the video was irrelevant, that the attackers were Al-Qaeda directed, etc etc. So what does your BS MATTER until the attackers are caught? And even then?

There were several reasons and a video isn't one of them.

The problem is all of the eye witnesses are either dead or in hiding.

Weren't they 'reassigned' so that Congress couldn't get in touch with them?

 

[The T]

FYI-Stevens was offered security personnel for the SECOND time, by Gen. Ham just 2 weeks prior to the attack, and Stevens turned it down....read the hearings notes....

He could possibly be here today, if he had said Yes to the security personnel offered....

The other thing to NOTE is the security personnel that the Embassy was requesting prior to the attack, was for more INTELLIGENCE personnel, not armed guards, they felt their security could be stronger with more intelligence AGENTS on the ground there...

CIA had a full annex of intelligence agents on the ground in benghazi...but they still were caught off guard....so who knows if the added security intelligence agents would have even helped?

Stevens did not turn down an offer for extra security. That is a report from some unknown official floated to provide cover for Hillary. The source of that lie cannot be accurately assessed, simply "Anonymous White House Official".

That sounded like bullshit to me and contrary to every report I've heard. It's probably making the rounds on the lib sites and they won't question it.

Why question evil? As long as their side wins? Meh---all the better for them...the only way they'll rethink is when they are directly affected...but by then it will be too late for them. Reap what you sow...

 

[mudwhistle]

How the hell are you sure the video was irrelevant lol? I tought we had a breakthrough there for a second- then you snap back to the brainwash lol...

And of course it was an armed assault, known from the get-go. Is that the RW goal? Duh.

How do you know it was? You can't take Obama's word for anything because he's a compulsive liar. I think that has been clearly established.

You just figure that time will alter perceptions and fog memories. That is what all of the stonewalling was designed to do in the first place.

30 survivors of the assault on those compounds are still being withheld from testifying. They undergo monthly polygraph tests by White House officials to assure they aren't talking to Congress or reporters.

Now why is that? What are they hiding?

 

[mudwhistle]

The Benghazi investigation is a waste of time
The Republicans are only doing it because of politics
It's all a fake scandal meant to take your mind off of jobs
Don't pay attention to the evidence
Why don't you watch Ducky Dynasty instead

 

[Care4all]

How the hell are you sure the video was irrelevant lol? I tought we had a breakthrough there for a second- then you snap back to the brainwash lol...

And of course it was an armed assault, known from the get-go. Is that the RW goal? Duh.

How do you know it was? You can't take Obama's word for anything because he's a compulsive liar. I think that has been clearly established.

You just figure that time will alter perceptions and fog memories. That is what all of the stonewalling was designed to do in the first place.

30 survivors of the assault on those compounds are still being withheld from testifying. They undergo monthly polygraph tests by White House officials to assure they aren't talking to Congress or reporters.

Now why is that? What are they hiding?

Simply NOT TRUE Mud...this was a year ago....they were all given permission to testify....

WASHINGTON -- CIA Director John Brennan is making public his letter to CIA employees who survived the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that requests they share their firsthand accounts with the congressional intelligence committees.


In the letter dated May 30, 2013, released to The Associated Press by the CIA, Brennan tells his employees that lawmakers asked to hear from them directly. But he adds that speaking to Congress is "completely voluntary" and can be done either through the CIA or confidentially, without informing CIA management.


The disclosure follows media reports that the CIA has been preventing employees from talking to lawmakers about the incident.


The nightlong attacks by militants on Sept. 11, 2012, killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, including two members of the CIA's security team.

Benghazi Attack Survivors Asked By CIA To Testify Before Congress, Letter Shows

 

[Care4all]

Hillary does not care what caused the death of 4 Americans at Benghazi.
Prior to the attack, Ambassador Stevens had requested an increase of security personnel at Benghazi which was denied. Who approved the denial?

Who was responsible for failing to immediately send military help to Benghazi? The Warrior Ethos demands this. Obviously, no one but the military understood it. The civilian bureaucrats certainly did not.

FYI-Stevens was offered security personnel for the SECOND time, by Gen. Ham just 2 weeks prior to the attack, and Stevens turned it down....read the hearings notes....

He could possibly be here today, if he had said Yes to the security personnel offered....

The other thing to NOTE is the security personnel that the Embassy was requesting prior to the attack, was for more INTELLIGENCE personnel, not armed guards, they felt their security could be stronger with more intelligence AGENTS on the ground there...

CIA had a full annex of intelligence agents on the ground in benghazi...but they still were caught off guard....so who knows if the added security intelligence agents would have even helped?

Stevens did not turn down an offer for extra security. That is a report from some unknown official floated to provide cover for Hillary. The source of that lie cannot be accurately assessed, simply "Anonymous White House Official".

It was verified, in General Ham's daily logs...

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary does not care what caused the death of 4 Americans at Benghazi.
Prior to the attack, Ambassador Stevens had requested an increase of security personnel at Benghazi which was denied. Who approved the denial?

Who was responsible for failing to immediately send military help to Benghazi? The Warrior Ethos demands this. Obviously, no one but the military understood it. The civilian bureaucrats certainly did not.

FYI-Stevens was offered security personnel for the SECOND time, by Gen. Ham just 2 weeks prior to the attack, and Stevens turned it down....read the hearings notes....

He could possibly be here today, if he had said Yes to the security personnel offered....

The other thing to NOTE is the security personnel that the Embassy was requesting prior to the attack, was for more INTELLIGENCE personnel, not armed guards, they felt their security could be stronger with more intelligence AGENTS on the ground there...

CIA had a full annex of intelligence agents on the ground in benghazi...but they still were caught off guard....so who knows if the added security intelligence agents would have even helped?

You fail to realize that the reason Stevens turned down General Ham's offer wasn't because he didn't think he needed additional security...he turned it down because security provided by US Armed Forces instead of the State Department would not have have diplomatic immunity (as the State Department security personnel did) and could be tried by Libyan courts. Stevens also correctly pointed out that under the Force of Arms agreement, the US couldn't bring additional military forces into Libya without the express permission of the Libyan government. All of which is why Stevens REPEATEDLY asked the State Department to not draw down his diplomatic security team. State Department didn't listen however because Hillary was concerned with how it would "appear" to the Libyans if we made it clear we didn't trust their militias to protect our diplomats.

One of the problems our diplomats had leading up to the 9/11 attacks is that because diplomatic security had been diminished as much as it had...they did not have anyone out in the Benghazi community getting a feel for problems. Instead they were isolated in their compounds...essentially blind to what was happening around them.