benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI!!!

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Someone posted many of Clinton's E-mails that showed that prior to the attack that the Post had asked from more protectiong but was turned down. So who knew.

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Try considering the allegations and the timeline. This has nothing to do with right wing stuff. This about the empirical. Logic vs a corrupt obama admin and a complicit media.

 

[Faun]

They did not lie. The GOP-led investigations determined that.

The investigation wasn’t about accusing a film, changing the story to terrorism while promoting the film angle all over the media. You’re as dishonest as those obama cronies.

The investigations concluded they didn’t lie about the video.

Then reconcile how it can be caused spontaneously by a video and be a coordinated terror attack, too.

No explanation needed for your strawman as both were not responsible for the attack. It was a terror attack. Though it took a couple of weeks until that was confirmed by our intelligence community.

Yet obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This being weeks after he spent the first two weeks blaming a video. None of that is illegal so it wouldn’t involve the results of an investigation.
None of that is reconcilable. The media assisted him in his duplicitous assertions.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

If that’s your standard, conservatives shouldn’t be allowed in this country.

Their stories changed because information coming in during and shortly after the attack was fluid. That doesn’t mean they lied when their stories changed — it means the intel changed.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

 

[JLW]

Someone posted many of Clinton's E-mails that showed that prior to the attack that the Post had asked from more protectiong but was turned down. So who knew.

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Try considering the allegations and the timeline. This has nothing to do with right wing stuff. This about the empirical. Logic vs a corrupt obama admin and a complicit media.

Over two years, millions of dollars and not a single indictment. Yeah, all done by the Republican controlled congress. Stop believing in baseless conspiracy theories.

 

[Slice The Great]

Someone posted many of Clinton's E-mails that showed that prior to the attack that the Post had asked from more protectiong but was turned down. So who knew.

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Is there a name for this brain condition? Other than just being "fucked in the head."

 

[Slice The Great]

The investigation wasn’t about accusing a film, changing the story to terrorism while promoting the film angle all over the media. You’re as dishonest as those obama cronies.

The investigations concluded they didn’t lie about the video.

Then reconcile how it can be caused spontaneously by a video and be a coordinated terror attack, too.

No explanation needed for your strawman as both were not responsible for the attack. It was a terror attack. Though it took a couple of weeks until that was confirmed by our intelligence community.

Yet obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This being weeks after he spent the first two weeks blaming a video. None of that is illegal so it wouldn’t involve the results of an investigation.
None of that is reconcilable. The media assisted him in his duplicitous assertions.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

If that’s your standard, conservatives shouldn’t be allowed in this country.

Their stories changed because information coming in during and shortly after the attack was fluid. That doesn’t mean they lied when their stories changed — it means the intel changed.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

You got it, buckaroo. I was just reading the transcript of Africom Deputy Commander Admiral Leidig's testimony before Congress. He said the first report he got about Benghazi said there was a demonstration. The mission was overrun and the Ambassador was in a safe room.

 

[tinydancer]

The investigations concluded they didn’t lie about the video.

Then reconcile how it can be caused spontaneously by a video and be a coordinated terror attack, too.

No explanation needed for your strawman as both were not responsible for the attack. It was a terror attack. Though it took a couple of weeks until that was confirmed by our intelligence community.

Yet obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This being weeks after he spent the first two weeks blaming a video. None of that is illegal so it wouldn’t involve the results of an investigation.
None of that is reconcilable. The media assisted him in his duplicitous assertions.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

If that’s your standard, conservatives shouldn’t be allowed in this country.

Their stories changed because information coming in during and shortly after the attack was fluid. That doesn’t mean they lied when their stories changed — it means the intel changed.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

You got it, buckaroo. I was just reading the transcript of Africom Deputy Commander Admiral Leidig's testimony before Congress. He said the first report he got about Benghazi said there was a demonstration. The mission was overrun and the Ambassador was in a safe room.

Ham said there were never any protestors and never passed that on. Key point being he was at the Pentagon. And he never said to any involved that there were protestors.

Cut the bullshit out.

'But Ham, who was alerted while visiting the Pentagon, said he heard no mention of protesters.

So he's sure he didn't pass on anything like that when he informed Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of the attack. Dempsey and Panetta personally took word to President Barack Obama at the White House.'

What the military did while Benghazi post burned

 

[tinydancer]

And another biggie....

One of the earliest reports came from Ambassador Chris Stevens, who told his deputy in a phone call cut short: "We're under attack."


"We started calling it an attack from inception," said Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, who was at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. "We never referred to it as anything else."



What the military did while Benghazi post burned

 

[JLW]

And another biggie....

"One of the earliest reports came from Ambassador Chris Stevens, who told his deputy in a phone call cut short: "We're under attack."


What the military did while Benghazi post burned

And yet over two years of Republican investigations found nothing....but continue to dream on.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The investigation wasn’t about accusing a film, changing the story to terrorism while promoting the film angle all over the media. You’re as dishonest as those obama cronies.

The investigations concluded they didn’t lie about the video.

Then reconcile how it can be caused spontaneously by a video and be a coordinated terror attack, too.

No explanation needed for your strawman as both were not responsible for the attack. It was a terror attack. Though it took a couple of weeks until that was confirmed by our intelligence community.

Yet obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This being weeks after he spent the first two weeks blaming a video. None of that is illegal so it wouldn’t involve the results of an investigation.
None of that is reconcilable. The media assisted him in his duplicitous assertions.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

If that’s your standard, conservatives shouldn’t be allowed in this country.

Their stories changed because information coming in during and shortly after the attack was fluid. That doesn’t mean they lied when their stories changed — it means the intel changed.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

You can’t know it was terrorism, change your story to ‘a video’ for weeks and then insist you claimed terrorism all along. But if media doesn’t hold you accountable and helps in your deception you can. For dupes.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Someone posted many of Clinton's E-mails that showed that prior to the attack that the Post had asked from more protectiong but was turned down. So who knew.

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Try considering the allegations and the timeline. This has nothing to do with right wing stuff. This about the empirical. Logic vs a corrupt obama admin and a complicit media.

Over two years, millions of dollars and not a single indictment. Yeah, all done by the Republican controlled congress. Stop believing in baseless conspiracy theories.

Lying, in and of itself, is not a crime.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Someone posted many of Clinton's E-mails that showed that prior to the attack that the Post had asked from more protectiong but was turned down. So who knew.

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Is there a name for this brain condition? Other than just being "fucked in the head."

Why can’t you resond to a pointed rebuttal? You must be fucked in the head.

 

[Faun]

Then reconcile how it can be caused spontaneously by a video and be a coordinated terror attack, too.

No explanation needed for your strawman as both were not responsible for the attack. It was a terror attack. Though it took a couple of weeks until that was confirmed by our intelligence community.

Yet obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This being weeks after he spent the first two weeks blaming a video. None of that is illegal so it wouldn’t involve the results of an investigation.
None of that is reconcilable. The media assisted him in his duplicitous assertions.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

If that’s your standard, conservatives shouldn’t be allowed in this country.

Their stories changed because information coming in during and shortly after the attack was fluid. That doesn’t mean they lied when their stories changed — it means the intel changed.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

You got it, buckaroo. I was just reading the transcript of Africom Deputy Commander Admiral Leidig's testimony before Congress. He said the first report he got about Benghazi said there was a demonstration. The mission was overrun and the Ambassador was in a safe room.

Ham said there were never any protestors and never passed that on. Key point being he was at the Pentagon. And he never said to any involved that there were protestors.

Cut the bullshit out.

'But Ham, who was alerted while visiting the Pentagon, said he heard no mention of protesters.

So he's sure he didn't pass on anything like that when he informed Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of the attack. Dempsey and Panetta personally took word to President Barack Obama at the White House.'

What the military did while Benghazi post burned

So what? The GOP-led investigations determined our intelligence community thought early on that the protest was the reason; yet you conservomaniacs continue to lie about it. You have no shame.

 

[Faun]

The investigations concluded they didn’t lie about the video.

Then reconcile how it can be caused spontaneously by a video and be a coordinated terror attack, too.

No explanation needed for your strawman as both were not responsible for the attack. It was a terror attack. Though it took a couple of weeks until that was confirmed by our intelligence community.

Yet obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This being weeks after he spent the first two weeks blaming a video. None of that is illegal so it wouldn’t involve the results of an investigation.
None of that is reconcilable. The media assisted him in his duplicitous assertions.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

If that’s your standard, conservatives shouldn’t be allowed in this country.

Their stories changed because information coming in during and shortly after the attack was fluid. That doesn’t mean they lied when their stories changed — it means the intel changed.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

You can’t know it was terrorism, change your story to ‘a video’ for weeks and then insist you claimed terrorism all along. But if media doesn’t hold you accountable and helps in your deception you can. For dupes.

Shove your strawman. You were shown it was our intelligence community, and not Obama, Clinton or Rice, who was responsible for the protest narrative.

Unlike you, they didn’t lie.

 

[Faun]

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Try considering the allegations and the timeline. This has nothing to do with right wing stuff. This about the empirical. Logic vs a corrupt obama admin and a complicit media.

Over two years, millions of dollars and not a single indictment. Yeah, all done by the Republican controlled congress. Stop believing in baseless conspiracy theories.

Lying, in and of itself, is not a crime.

And the GOP-led investigations determined they didn’t lie.

When do you stop lying?

 

[Slice The Great]

John Tiegen is lying if he says the CIA Chief of Base in Benghazi told him the rescue mission was cancelled. I can prove it with Teigen's own sworn testimony before the House Select Committee Investigation. Just ask and you shall receive.

 

[Rustic]

Thread to keep track of the latest in the trumped-up Benghazi scandal.

Let's start with this...

Lawmakers: No 'stand down' order given in Benghazi attack - Washington Times

Remember the far RW talking point about "Who gave the order to stand down!?!"

Well as you can see above, it's clearly not true. Just as the entire made up scandal is one series of lies and garbage after the next.

More revelations to come, feel free to share...

Lol
Obama and Hildabeast did not give two shits about those people in the embassy so shut the **** up

 

[Slice The Great]

Thread to keep track of the latest in the trumped-up Benghazi scandal.

Let's start with this...

Lawmakers: No 'stand down' order given in Benghazi attack - Washington Times

Remember the far RW talking point about "Who gave the order to stand down!?!"

Well as you can see above, it's clearly not true. Just as the entire made up scandal is one series of lies and garbage after the next.

More revelations to come, feel free to share...

Lol
Obama and Hildabeast did not give two shits about those people in the embassy so shut the **** up

The evidence convinces me otherwise.

 

[theHawk]

Someone posted many of Clinton's E-mails that showed that prior to the attack that the Post had asked from more protectiong but was turned down. So who knew.

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Try considering the allegations and the timeline. This has nothing to do with right wing stuff. This about the empirical. Logic vs a corrupt obama admin and a complicit media.

Over two years, millions of dollars and not a single indictment. Yeah, all done by the Republican controlled congress. Stop believing in baseless conspiracy theories.

Why would there be an indictment? No one ever said what happened was illegal. It was a horrendous judgement call that resulted in deaths of Americans. The point of the investigations were to find out what exactly happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. They found that the incident was completely preventable, and that Hillary and the Hussein made numerous bad decisions and lied to the American public about it. Again, none of which is illegal, but the point was to show the American people what happened. It was a success, and Dems lost the election.

 

[Claudette]

Bottom line is they failed to protect when protection was most warranted. Then they attempted to cover up their mistake. Then when the coverup was exposed, media helped them cover up the coverup.

Bullshit. There was no attempt to cover it up. Yet more nonsense from the brain-dead right who still doesn’t know what happened even after 8 investigations.

The right has a brain condition that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theories. This defect prevents them from believing in any objective truth. If there is no objective truth then everything is subjective. If it is subjective all that matter is their opinion as everything else is a lie.

That is why they will never believe in the results of the Congressional hearings which found nothing. Their opinions, as baseless as they are, is all that matters. Opinions not worth the electrons that make up this post.

Try considering the allegations and the timeline. This has nothing to do with right wing stuff. This about the empirical. Logic vs a corrupt obama admin and a complicit media.

Over two years, millions of dollars and not a single indictment. Yeah, all done by the Republican controlled congress. Stop believing in baseless conspiracy theories.

Why would there be an indictment? No one ever said what happened was illegal. It was a horrendous judgement call that resulted in deaths of Americans. The point of the investigations were to find out what exactly happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. They found that the incident was completely preventable, and that Hillary and the Hussein made numerous bad decisions and lied to the American public about it. Again, none of which is illegal, but the point was to show the American people what happened. It was a success, and Dems lost the election.

It was gross negligence by State. That's not a crime. It just cost the lives of four good men.