The US Switched Side in the War on Terror

[theDoctorisIn]

Damn those ex-CIA officials and retired Admirals.....shills, all of them

Pretty much, yeah.

The group was put together by "Accuracy In Media", which is a right-wing "watchdog" group, equivalent to MediaMatters.

Compared to the obama regime, they're practically holy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kw2-rmerZg]65 Outrageous Lies By President Obama! - YouTube[/ame]

Do you think that the fact that Obama lies means that no one else does?

What does Obama lying have to do with the legitimacy of the kangaroo court's "findings" in the OP?

 

[hortysir]

Compared to the obama regime, they're practically holy

65 Outrageous Lies By President Obama! - YouTube

I was tempted to go there, but didn't want to get stuck in an endless circle of finger-pointing.
But I have yet to see anything to back up the "right-wing MediaMatters group" claim.
Regardless of who 'put together' the group, does that negate or diminish their findings?
Can we debate those findings, rather than the source?

Citizens' Commission on Benghazi | On April 22nd the CCB released an interim report with preliminary findings.
Accuracy In Media
Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the second part, of course it "diminishes" their "findings". They "found" what they (and AIM) wanted to find. None of the members of the "Citizen's Commission" have any insider knowledge of what happened, their opinions on it are no more relevant than yours or mine.

If George Soros put together a "Commission" on Benghazi, and "found" that Obama handled everything perfectly, would you "debate" those findings, or rightly dismiss them out of hand?

Thank you

 

[Edgetho]

Compared to the obama regime, they're practically holy

65 Outrageous Lies By President Obama! - YouTube

I was tempted to go there, but didn't want to get stuck in an endless circle of finger-pointing.
But I have yet to see anything to back up the "right-wing MediaMatters group" claim.
Regardless of who 'put together' the group, does that negate or diminish their findings?
Can we debate those findings, rather than the source?

Citizens' Commission on Benghazi | On April 22nd the CCB released an interim report with preliminary findings.
Accuracy In Media
Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the second part, of course it "diminishes" their "findings". They "found" what they (and AIM) wanted to find. None of the members of the "Citizen's Commission" have any insider knowledge of what happened, their opinions on it are no more relevant than yours or mine.

If George Soros put together a "Commission" on Benghazi, and "found" that Obama handled everything perfectly, would you "debate" those findings, or rightly dismiss them out of hand?

Then why is the Liar in Chief still refusing to let CIA and Military officials to be questioned by a closed Congressional Committee?

This thing stinks to high heaven and only an idiot would think otherwise.

Who's out of touch......?

Fox News Poll: Voters say Obama covering up on Benghazi, want Congress to keep investigating | Fox News

By a margin of 61-26 percent, voters believe that the White House is “trying to cover-up” what happened in Benghazi rather than “being open and transparent.” Those views are mostly unchanged since last year.

About a third of Democrats (33 percent), two-thirds of independents (66 percent) and almost all Republicans (87 percent) say the Obama administration is hiding something on Benghazi.

Veterans (64 percent) and non-veterans (61 percent) alike see a cover-up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I was tempted to go there, but didn't want to get stuck in an endless circle of finger-pointing.
But I have yet to see anything to back up the "right-wing MediaMatters group" claim.
Regardless of who 'put together' the group, does that negate or diminish their findings?
Can we debate those findings, rather than the source?

Citizens' Commission on Benghazi | On April 22nd the CCB released an interim report with preliminary findings.
Accuracy In Media
Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the second part, of course it "diminishes" their "findings". They "found" what they (and AIM) wanted to find. None of the members of the "Citizen's Commission" have any insider knowledge of what happened, their opinions on it are no more relevant than yours or mine.

If George Soros put together a "Commission" on Benghazi, and "found" that Obama handled everything perfectly, would you "debate" those findings, or rightly dismiss them out of hand?

Then why is the Liar in Chief still refusing to let CIA and Military officials to be questioned by a closed Congressional Committee?

This thing stinks to high heaven and only an idiot would think otherwise.

Who's out of touch......?

Fox News Poll: Voters say Obama covering up on Benghazi, want Congress to keep investigating | Fox News

By a margin of 61-26 percent, voters believe that the White House is “trying to cover-up” what happened in Benghazi rather than “being open and transparent.” Those views are mostly unchanged since last year.

About a third of Democrats (33 percent), two-thirds of independents (66 percent) and almost all Republicans (87 percent) say the Obama administration is hiding something on Benghazi.

Veterans (64 percent) and non-veterans (61 percent) alike see a cover-up.

What does any of this have to do with the OP, or the "Citizen's Commission"?

Trying to change the subject back to Obama is getting old.

 

[Edgetho]

Pretty much, yeah.

The group was put together by "Accuracy In Media", which is a right-wing "watchdog" group, equivalent to MediaMatters.

Compared to the obama regime, they're practically holy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kw2-rmerZg]65 Outrageous Lies By President Obama! - YouTube[/ame]

Do you think that the fact that Obama lies means that no one else does?

What does Obama lying have to do with the legitimacy of the kangaroo court's "findings" in the OP?

We know why obama would lie. We know why he DID lie.

Why would these people lie?

Any of them running for Office?

Any of them currently on the RNC payroll?

Any of them working for Putin, Maduro or the Chinese?

Why would they lie?

obama is a known, proven liar.

Not only that, he has a reason to lie..... Votes and voters and to save his own ass.

Why would these other people lie?

You trust professional politicians over private Citizens?

Yeah, right

 

[BlindBoo]

so on one hand..... the 'U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives'.......

but on the other hand you claim...."the CIA launched a successful counter attack....." ?

hey i'm not taking anything away from the CIA agents that went to the compound about 10pm which was already trashed and burning, couldn't find Stevens but brought back Smith dead, and then defended the annex till dawn....

but that was no "counterattack".....

there was no counterattack because BO didn't send anybody in to counterattack...

You think the militants just gave back the building without a fight? Nope, the CIA and their Libyans partners(totaled about 20 men) had to fight their way into the building to search for survivors. That was a counterattack. The President left the operational decisions to the military, as he should have, when he gave the order to use all DOD asset available to protect American lives. Smith was already dead and Stevens was missing and, as I recal,l they were worried that Stevens had become a hostage. Everyone else was safe in the CIA annex and were waiting to be evacuated to the fortified embassy in Tripoli.

why would the militants defend a building they had destroyed and was burning....? the CIA fighting their way into the building to look for survivors was not a 'counterattack'....it was a rescue mission...they quickly returned to the annex...

military assets were told by the Pentagon to stand down according to Hicks in testimony...

hours later...the annex was attacked with mortars.....killing former Navy Seals Woods and Doherty (who came in from Tripoli)...

but...according to Hillary....'at this point what difference does it make...?'

They quickly returned to the Annex because the crowd they had just removed from the building was gathering for another attack. It was when the response team from Tripoli finally was able to get from the Benghazi airport to the Annex that they came under fire and the mortar attack happen. The Pentagon never issued a stand down order. The original rescue team from the Annex was told to wait for more firepower by their superior, that delay was about twenty minutes and has been mistaken for a stand down order too.

Hillary was correct. Preventing future attacks is not dependent on the motives of the attackers.

This report is nothing but fodder for the Echo Chamber.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Benghazi

Bundyfest is running out of steam, time for the partisan right to drag out the tired old phony Benghazi ‘scandal’ until another non-issue comes along they can contrive into yet another phony ‘scandal.’

 

[TexM3]

I've never understood your need to reshape others' posts or make something personal. The fact is McCain certainly did have power, and continues to have power, to put political pressure on Obama to take various actions in Syria and Ukraine. In fact, Obama would have bombed Assad if the Ryn Paul wing hadn't abandoned McCain on military action.

Arming the Syrian insurgents was pretty much Obama's only military play. You don't like that. Tough shit. It's not about you.

Personally, I didn't see the logic in arming the Afghans back in the 80s under either Jimmy or the Gipper, nor did I really see the logic in Iraq, Egypt, Libya or Syria.

As for Bengahazi, keep gnawing on that bone.

Where dose the buck stop according to Obama?

And arming Syrian insurgents aka al qaeda is TREASON.

No.

It isn't 'treason'.

Stupid? Yeah, okay. Ill-advised? Yup.

Treason? No

Unless the war on terror is over, and that would be news to me, giving aid an comfort to al qaeda is absolutely treason.

 

[tinydancer]

The thing is that the McCain wing of the gop was in this up to their armpits too. So, politicizing it is so lame. If you want to say the DOS screwed up securitywise, fine by me.

McRINO may very well have been in it up to his mishapen ears. Don't care.

HE didn't have the power to act. HE didn't have the power to order Rangers or SEALs or other Paratroopers dropped into the area.

HE didn't have the power to order a flight F-18s to buzz the area at Mach II and 500 feet.

HE didn't stand up in front of the American People and ******* LIE his ass off.

HE didn't make up some ******* BULLSHIT STORY about a stupid video -- Which was so badly done that it was totally laughable, BTW.

obama could have tried to save those people. He may have failed, we don't know. He may have gotten more Americans killed, we don't know.

But he didn't.

He could have come to us, the American People, and told us that it was a Command Decision on his part to NOT send in rescue troops for -- For whatever reason.

But he didn't. Instead........

HE ******* LIED!!!

Like the scumbag he is..... He LIED!

The man is a pathological ******* liar. He is a scumbag, a deceiving back-stabber and a completely and utterly corrupt human being.

I'm not saying that to be partisan. It's what he is. He is a true piece of ******* shit. He has NO redeemable qualities whatsoever

And you love him.

What's that say about you?

I've never understood your need to reshape others' posts or make something personal. The fact is McCain certainly did have power, and continues to have power, to put political pressure on Obama to take various actions in Syria and Ukraine. In fact, Obama would have bombed Assad if the Ryn Paul wing hadn't abandoned McCain on military action.

Arming the Syrian insurgents was pretty much Obama's only military play. You don't like that. Tough shit. It's not about you.

Personally, I didn't see the logic in arming the Afghans back in the 80s under either Jimmy or the Gipper, nor did I really see the logic in Iraq, Egypt, Libya or Syria.

As for Bengahazi, keep gnawing on that bone.

Obama's plan to arm the rebels was in gear. But then we found out the paid mercenaries errrrrrrrrrrrr rebels were attacking the original opposition to Assad and stealing the weapons we armed them with. Ditto AQ. They were seizing the weapons as well.

Assad is fighting terrorists in his country. And why the hell we are involved in this bullshit too is beyond me.

Syria was never an "Arab Spring".

So lets see. The west gave Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood. Thank heavens Egyptians came to their senses and seized back their country.

Mmmm. Mmmm. Mmmm. Gave Libya to the militias. And they got a mega bonus of all the weaponry Gaddafi had stashed.

Whoopsies.

Syria was bozo land from the start with the US and Britain attempting to overthrow Assad by proxy. Busted!

Now the Ukraine. The west is backing an illegal government who seized power by a violent coup.

There's a common freaking theme here. Our leaders are screwing up on an industrial strength level by interfering world wide.

And they don't seem to be getting the message that they keep choosing losers.