U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Stinger Ray]

Beghazi matters because:

• Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?
• Security: again, we went down this road in the late 90's, protecting our embassies matters, but even today we do not have this covered? Congress, State, GOP, Demo, someone has to answer for this woefully inadequate force. Pretty sure everyone wants our embassies to be bulletproof. Unfortunately, that's costly, and not possible. #### happens. I am 100% sure that a review was made and processes are being changed to make an effort to prevent this in the future. It's silly to assume otherwise, simply because you haven't been briefed on the changes.
• Even political foes with poor motives have a right to know what is going on in our government. The problem is that the WH produced one set of documents to Congress, a different set to a federal court. That's a problem. No it's not. Were the document requests identical? If not, the documents sets would not be exactly the same.
• The NSA is involved with writing political talking points to fit political goals. No, that should not be happening; that's different from providing intelligence analysis that political advisers then use to write political speeches and appearances. Oh BS.
• Why the hell is the leader of the Joint Chiefs calling a private citizen about his personal religious views and free speech? Did the president order this? Please provide a link from a responsible journalism source suggestion that Obama personally ordered the JC to call the dude about the video. Are you just making this up?
• Why did the SOS make a statement about jailing someone who made a personal movie, and then why later why was that person actually jailed for free speech? Perhaps your only non-ridiculous question. Think about it for a minute - why would Clinton whisper that to the victim's family if this was all just a political smokescreen?
• What was the president doing? Don't we have a right to know this? Has anyone, can anyone, detail one news story or snipped about what our commander in chief did when the sht was hitting the fan? Was he in the Situation Room? No. Was he in personal touch with military and diplomatic personnel? No. Here's something about the issue of air support not being called in - the President should make that call, he has to, it was an attack on a foreign country. The SOS could not make it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot make that call. What was our president doing? Simple question, nobody, not you or the most ardent liberal claims we don't have a right to know. Again with the geo-tracking the president's whereabouts in the White House? This is beyond stupid. Do you want to know when Obama takes a #### as well?
• We need to ask why was the president still talking about the stupid video 2 weeks after the fact. This is constantly ignored by his supporters, even sometimes by his critics. This is one reason the GOP is doing a disservice to everyone. To me the incompetence and the complete disconnect from real, hard on the ground intelligence is a far big bigger problem than what is a very unlikely conspiracy scenario. How often has this been going on and where else? It wasn't this cut and dry two weeks after the fact. You can keep pretending it was, but there was a lot of conflicting intelligence, and lots of reasons to believe the uprisings in other areas played a role. Sorry that doesn't fit your worldview.

I'll be kind and just say this is one of the worst posts I've ever seen on this board. Literally every point is FoxNews boogey man talking point. My responses are in red, and in Comic Sans font, due to the absolute joke I'm responding to.

Your responses in red are delusional. If you really think Obama didn't know the truth of what happened that night two weeks after it happened shows what a total left wing hack you are. He lied about it. Everyone close to Benghazi that night including the CIA chief in Libya said it wasn't due to any protests and they have video to back that up.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Beghazi matters because:

• Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?
• Security: again, we went down this road in the late 90's, protecting our embassies matters, but even today we do not have this covered? Congress, State, GOP, Demo, someone has to answer for this woefully inadequate force. Pretty sure everyone wants our embassies to be bulletproof. Unfortunately, that's costly, and not possible. #### happens. I am 100% sure that a review was made and processes are being changed to make an effort to prevent this in the future. It's silly to assume otherwise, simply because you haven't been briefed on the changes.
• Even political foes with poor motives have a right to know what is going on in our government. The problem is that the WH produced one set of documents to Congress, a different set to a federal court. That's a problem. No it's not. Were the document requests identical? If not, the documents sets would not be exactly the same.
• The NSA is involved with writing political talking points to fit political goals. No, that should not be happening; that's different from providing intelligence analysis that political advisers then use to write political speeches and appearances. Oh BS.
• Why the hell is the leader of the Joint Chiefs calling a private citizen about his personal religious views and free speech? Did the president order this? Please provide a link from a responsible journalism source suggestion that Obama personally ordered the JC to call the dude about the video. Are you just making this up?
• Why did the SOS make a statement about jailing someone who made a personal movie, and then why later why was that person actually jailed for free speech? Perhaps your only non-ridiculous question. Think about it for a minute - why would Clinton whisper that to the victim's family if this was all just a political smokescreen?
• What was the president doing? Don't we have a right to know this? Has anyone, can anyone, detail one news story or snipped about what our commander in chief did when the sht was hitting the fan? Was he in the Situation Room? No. Was he in personal touch with military and diplomatic personnel? No. Here's something about the issue of air support not being called in - the President should make that call, he has to, it was an attack on a foreign country. The SOS could not make it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot make that call. What was our president doing? Simple question, nobody, not you or the most ardent liberal claims we don't have a right to know. Again with the geo-tracking the president's whereabouts in the White House? This is beyond stupid. Do you want to know when Obama takes a #### as well?
• We need to ask why was the president still talking about the stupid video 2 weeks after the fact. This is constantly ignored by his supporters, even sometimes by his critics. This is one reason the GOP is doing a disservice to everyone. To me the incompetence and the complete disconnect from real, hard on the ground intelligence is a far big bigger problem than what is a very unlikely conspiracy scenario. How often has this been going on and where else? It wasn't this cut and dry two weeks after the fact. You can keep pretending it was, but there was a lot of conflicting intelligence, and lots of reasons to believe the uprisings in other areas played a role. Sorry that doesn't fit your worldview.

I'll be kind and just say this is one of the worst posts I've ever seen on this board. Literally every point is FoxNews boogey man talking point. My responses are in red, and in Comic Sans font, due to the absolute joke I'm responding to.

Gunz, I'm going to give you a Like and give you kudos for putting in the thought of discussing.

I thought I had left the Fox - and MSNBC - stuff behind because not once did I mention a conspiracy in the way of suggesting there was one. Not one.

I think the point by Tim about Lebanon does raise one important point: it's important to get a Lessons Learned out of this for the sake of history and for the sake of being better as a country. I'm sure that's the vein in which you intended your response as well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Gunz, I'll try to deal with tehse individually:

Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?

I say that because President Obama promised the families of the victims that he would chase down the perpetrators and bring them justice. We do know the perps, and they haven't been attacked, arrested, brought back to the US, killed, any of that. Right? Do we agree on all that?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Security: again, we went down this road in the late 90's, protecting our embassies matters, but even today we do not have this covered? Congress, State, GOP, Demo, someone has to answer for this woefully inadequate force. Pretty sure everyone wants our embassies to be bulletproof. Unfortunately, that's costly, and not possible. #### happens. I am 100% sure that a review was made and processes are being changed to make an effort to prevent this in the future. It's silly to assume otherwise, simply because you haven't been briefed on the changes.

Gunz, I often admit that I'm not keeping up with the news cycle.

Ok, tell me, who made the actual call on having so few personnel there and what has Congress and the WH done - together - to beef up security, knowing full well the value of embassies to terrorists as targets?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Even political foes with poor motives have a right to know what is going on in our government. The problem is that the WH produced one set of documents to Congress, a different set to a federal court. That's a problem. No it's not. Were the document requests identical? If not, the documents sets would not be exactly the same.

Fair point.

Can you imagine a request on this issue that would not encompass the Rhodes memo and the 9/12 emails at issue here?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The NSA is involved with writing political talking points to fit political goals. No, that should not be happening; that's different from providing intelligence analysis that political advisers then use to write political speeches and appearances. Oh BS.

Well then you and I grossly disagree, and I'd say you're view on this is pretty much Nixonian and not liberal at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why the hell is the leader of the Joint Chiefs calling a private citizen about his personal religious views and free speech? Did the president order this? Please provide a link from a responsible journalism source suggestion that Obama personally ordered the JC to call the dude about the video. Are you just making this up?

Gunz - note the question mark. It was a question.

Also, Tim was the one who pointed out that mention was made of Gen. Clayton's calling the preacher in the original analysis summary of 9/12.

I'm asking do we know we did this on his own or was he asked. That's all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why did the SOS make a statement about jailing someone who made a personal movie, and then why later why was that person actually jailed for free speech? Perhaps your only non-ridiculous question. Think about it for a minute - why would Clinton whisper that to the victim's family if this was all just a political smokescreen?

Gunz, do me a favor and read the words I write before you jump to conclusions, I've been saying we have serious negligence here, not conspiracy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What was the president doing? Don't we have a right to know this? Has anyone, can anyone, detail one news story or snipped about what our commander in chief did when the sht was hitting the fan? Was he in the Situation Room? No. Was he in personal touch with military and diplomatic personnel? No. Here's something about the issue of air support not being called in - the President should make that call, he has to, it was an attack on a foreign country. The SOS could not make it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot make that call. What was our president doing? Simple question, nobody, not you or the most ardent liberal claims we don't have a right to know. Again with the geo-tracking the president's whereabouts in the White House? This is beyond stupid. Do you want to know when Obama takes a #### as well?

Yes, actually when the sht is going down each and every president should report if he was taking a sht instead of doing his job.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We need to ask why was the president still talking about the stupid video 2 weeks after the fact. This is constantly ignored by his supporters, even sometimes by his critics. This is one reason the GOP is doing a disservice to everyone. To me the incompetence and the complete disconnect from real, hard on the ground intelligence is a far big bigger problem than what is a very unlikely conspiracy scenario. How often has this been going on and where else? It wasn't this cut and dry two weeks after the fact. You can keep pretending it was, but there was a lot of conflicting intelligence, and lots of reasons to believe the uprisings in other areas played a role. Sorry that doesn't fit your worldview.

Gunz, this "fog of war" was the fog of the WH political team; there was a serious disconnect from the analysis of the actual intelligence reports. No I'm not saying that's a conspiracy, but I also don't know why that should make us feel any better.

 

[greenroom]

Gunz, I'll try to deal with tehse individually:

Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?

I say that because President Obama promised the families of the victims that he would chase down the perpetrators and bring them justice. We do know the perps, and they haven't been attacked, arrested, brought back to the US, killed, any of that. Right? Do we agree on all that?

Link to show that they have not attacked those that are responsible? I hear about killing the bad guys every so often. But I don't read the far right conspiracy latest theory.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Gunz, I'll try to deal with tehse individually:

Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?

I say that because President Obama promised the families of the victims that he would chase down the perpetrators and bring them justice. We do know the perps, and they haven't been attacked, arrested, brought back to the US, killed, any of that. Right? Do we agree on all that?

Link to show that they have not attacked those that are responsible? I hear about killing the bad guys every so often. But I don't read the far right conspiracy latest theory.

"There's a sealed indictment," Obama said at a news conference at the White House. "It's sealed for a reason, but we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack. And we're going to stay on it until we get them."

It's unusual for a public official to talk openly about grand jury protected material. Sealed criminal charges are supposed to be secret until they're unsealed.

U.S. officials said earlier this week the Justice Department filed the first criminal charges against an unknown number of people believed responsible, and one official said they included Ahmed Abu Khattala, the head of a prominent Libyan militia.

It was described then as a criminal complaint, not an indictment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/obama-benghazi_n_3733870.html

I mean, I just haven't heard of it. The perpetrator and leaders involved have been reported on for a while. That pledge by Obama was in October, plus one of the victims' fathers said that Obama personally promised to get the people who did it.

Do you think it's a good message to send to terrorists that there is absolutely no repercussion for attacking a consulate?

I would pretty much credit well meaning liberal and progressive Americans for wanting this to be done as well, no?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Gunz, I'll try to deal with tehse individually:

Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?

I say that because President Obama promised the families of the victims that he would chase down the perpetrators and bring them justice. We do know the perps, and they haven't been attacked, arrested, brought back to the US, killed, any of that. Right? Do we agree on all that?

Link to show that they have not attacked those that are responsible? I hear about killing the bad guys every so often. But I don't read the far right conspiracy latest theory.

Google it and enlighten yourself.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Gunz, I'll try to deal with tehse individually:

Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?

I say that because President Obama promised the families of the victims that he would chase down the perpetrators and bring them justice. We do know the perps, and they haven't been attacked, arrested, brought back to the US, killed, any of that. Right? Do we agree on all that?

Link to show that they have not attacked those that are responsible? I hear about killing the bad guys every so often. But I don't read the far right conspiracy latest theory.

Google it and enlighten yourself.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Gunz, I'll try to deal with tehse individually:

Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?

I say that because President Obama promised the families of the victims that he would chase down the perpetrators and bring them justice. We do know the perps, and they haven't been attacked, arrested, brought back to the US, killed, any of that. Right? Do we agree on all that?

Link to show that they have not attacked those that are responsible? I hear about killing the bad guys every so often. But I don't read the far right conspiracy latest theory.

Google it and enlighten yourself.

I know they haven't done much at all to those responsible for the attack.

 

[tommyboy]

It matters when ambassadors are murdered and nothing is done about it. The establishment made a serious mistake, actually several, and lied to cover their butts. Thiat matters.

They are now reduced to claiming Benghazi is a conspiracy theory, or people that care about Benghazi are like ufo hunters. This is the last place they can go, because they lied and are now caught.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

and nothing is done about it.

 

[Sand]

and nothing is done about it.

Well, in all fairness, the administration did lie repeatedly and amateurishly, told these same lies to the deceaseds' next of kin, got caught in these lies, spent 2 years obfuscating and delaying so it would go away, got caught again, and is now whining that this is all political.

So yes, they have done something.

 

[tommyGunZ]

We need to ask why was the president still talking about the stupid video 2 weeks after the fact. This is constantly ignored by his supporters, even sometimes by his critics. This is one reason the GOP is doing a disservice to everyone. To me the incompetence and the complete disconnect from real, hard on the ground intelligence is a far big bigger problem than what is a very unlikely conspiracy scenario. How often has this been going on and where else? It wasn't this cut and dry two weeks after the fact. You can keep pretending it was, but there was a lot of conflicting intelligence, and lots of reasons to believe the uprisings in other areas played a role. Sorry that doesn't fit your worldview.

Gunz, this "fog of war" was the fog of the WH political team; there was a serious disconnect from the analysis of the actual intelligence reports. No I'm not saying that's a conspiracy, but I also don't know why that should make us feel any better.

There was such disconnect from the intelligence reports that the IC signed off on Rice's talking points?

 

[tommyGunZ]

and nothing is done about it.

Well, in all fairness, the administration did lie repeatedly and amateurishly, told these same lies to the deceaseds' next of kin, got caught in these lies, spent 2 years obfuscating and delaying so it would go away, got caught again, and is now whining that this is all political.

So yes, they have done something.

If only Obama would invade Austraila, perhaps you guys would be happy.

 

[FlapJacks]

O:"hey Hillary, I have to fly to a fundraiser. Can I trust you to handle this and call the shots for a few hours? "

H:"OK... After all, how badly could somebody #### this one up?"

 

[Boston]

I would think the dems would welcome a hearing...right now the Obama administration has a serious issue when it comes to honesty...if you feel nothing happened here than hearings will show that, make the GOP look like political jerks and regain some much needed credibility to the President prior to mid-term elections...also, Hillary needs to put this to bed prior to running for President...nothing positive happens for her if this continues to linger...this should only be a plus for the dems if you believe nothing happened...

IMO this issue is very simple...Benghazi was a fiasco...that being said in today's world this fiasco could have happened whether the D's or R's were running the show...just too many bad guys out there...the issue is this fiasco occurred during a Presidential election and not wanting it to become a distraction the Obama administration made up the video BS hoping that would make this fiasco either go away for good or at least until after the election...and it did...but now because they fibbed they have to cover-up that fib and like most of these situations it will be the cover-up that gets them into hot water...there is no conspiracy here just an issue of honesty and this administration does not have a good history in that department and I am guessing that's what will come out of this whole episode...

 

[timschochet]

I would think the dems would welcome a hearing...right now the Obama administration has a serious issue when it comes to honesty...if you feel nothing happened here than hearings will show that, make the GOP look like political jerks

Didn't all of this already happen? From Wiki:

Senate Select Committee on IntelligenceThe U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence delivered their bipartisan report on the terrorist attacks on January 15, 2014. The majority of the committee offered the following conclusions:[257]

• The attacks were preventable.
• Fifteen people in Libya who have tried to help the FBI investigation have been killed.
• There were no protests in the area prior to the attack.
• Terrorists who participated in the attacks included members of al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Mohammad Jamal Network.
• No 'stand down' order was given by President Barack Obama or any other official anywhere in the government in terms of possible military efforts to combat the attackers, despite later reports.
• The "Benghazi attacks have been the subject of misinformed speculation and accusations long after the basic facts of the attacks have been determined, thereby distracting attention from more important concerns: the tragic deaths of four brave Americans, the hunt for their attackers, efforts by the U.S. Government to avoid future attacks, and the future of the U.S-Libya relationship."
• The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."
• No evidence was found of any effort to downplay the role of terrorists enacting a pre-planned strike in the Benghazi attacks.
• The reference to "al-Qa'ida" included in early drafts of the talking points was removed by CIA staff, not by the White House or the FBI, as was incorrectly alleged by some members of Congress and the press.
• The "CIA's September 15, 2012, talking points.. .wrongly attributed the genesis of the Benghazi attacks to protests that became violent. However, as stated in the report, this characterization reflected the assessment by the IC of the information available at that time, which lacked sufficient intelligence and eyewitness statements to conclude that there were no protests. Further, it is important to remember that this early assessment was made in the context of approximately 40 protests around the globe against U.S. embassies and consulates in response to an inflammatory film. There were also other violent attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other cities around the world on or after September 11."
• In general, the majority concluded "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes."

So why are we doing this all over again?

 

[timschochet]

So basically conservatives don't like what the bipartisan Senate committee had to say about all of this, only 3 months ago, after a year of exhaustive investigation that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. So now we get to start over again?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I would think the dems would welcome a hearing...right now the Obama administration has a serious issue when it comes to honesty...if you feel nothing happened here than hearings will show that, make the GOP look like political jerks and regain some much needed credibility to the President prior to mid-term elections...also, Hillary needs to put this to bed prior to running for President...nothing positive happens for her if this continues to linger...this should only be a plus for the dems if you believe nothing happened...

IMO this issue is very simple...Benghazi was a fiasco...that being said in today's world this fiasco could have happened whether the D's or R's were running the show...just too many bad guys out there...the issue is this fiasco occurred during a Presidential election and not wanting it to become a distraction the Obama administration made up the video BS hoping that would make this fiasco either go away for good or at least until after the election...and it did...but now because they fibbed they have to cover-up that fib and like most of these situations it will be the cover-up that gets them into hot water...there is no conspiracy here just an issue of honesty and this administration does not have a good history in that department and I am guessing that's what will come out of this whole episode...

When you say the "Obama administration made up the video BS", you mean the intelligence community?

This post is exactly why Fox News and Breitbart are so successful. Right wing talking points becoming so mainstream and ingrained in the conversation that folks believe this nonsense, facts be damned.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I would think the dems would welcome a hearing...right now the Obama administration has a serious issue when it comes to honesty...if you feel nothing happened here than hearings will show that, make the GOP look like political jerks and regain some much needed credibility to the President prior to mid-term elections...also, Hillary needs to put this to bed prior to running for President...nothing positive happens for her if this continues to linger...this should only be a plus for the dems if you believe nothing happened...

IMO this issue is very simple...Benghazi was a fiasco...that being said in today's world this fiasco could have happened whether the D's or R's were running the show...just too many bad guys out there...the issue is this fiasco occurred during a Presidential election and not wanting it to become a distraction the Obama administration made up the video BS hoping that would make this fiasco either go away for good or at least until after the election...and it did...but now because they fibbed they have to cover-up that fib and like most of these situations it will be the cover-up that gets them into hot water...there is no conspiracy here just an issue of honesty and this administration does not have a good history in that department and I am guessing that's what will come out of this whole episode...

When you say the "Obama administration made up the video BS", you mean the intelligence community?

This post is exactly why Fox News and Breitbart are so successful. Right wing talking points becoming so mainstream and ingrained in the conversation that folks believe this nonsense, facts be damned.

The head of the CIA that was stationed in Libya stated they knew that night this was a terrorist attack and video taken outside the compound showed no demonstrations. They also have stated they knew that night the groups that were behind it. Based on the email that came out last week it is obvious the White House made up the video BS and Obama continued to lie about it for two weeks after the attack.

 

[timschochet]

Boston and Stinger Ray, please answer the question: The Senate spent an entire year and millions of dollars looking into this, and reached the conclusions I posted above. Why do we need to do this over again?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Boston and Stinger Ray, please answer the question: The Senate spent an entire year and millions of dollars looking into this, and reached the conclusions I posted above. Why do we need to do this over again?

Based on the emails that came out last week that should have been released when it was subpoenaed there may be other documents that they could be hiding.

Not knowing how long the attack would last (it lasted 7 hours), why were no US military assets dispatched to at least try to get to Benghazi in time to help?

Why have those responsible for the attack not been hunted down and captured?

Why did Obama lie for two weeks after the attacks about the video?

Why did they ignore all the intelligence they received that this wasn't about a demonstration and instead try and place the blame on a video.

The friends and family of those killed that night also deserve HONEST answers.

 

[timschochet]

Boston and Stinger Ray, please answer the question: The Senate spent an entire year and millions of dollars looking into this, and reached the conclusions I posted above. Why do we need to do this over again?

Based on the emails that came out last week that should have been released when it was subpoenaed there may be other documents that they could be hiding.Not knowing how long the attack would last (it lasted 7 hours), why were no US military assets dispatched to at least try to get to Benghazi in time to help?

Why have those responsible for the attack not been hunted down and captured?

Why did Obama lie for two weeks after the attacks about the video?

Why did they ignore all the intelligence they received that this wasn't about a demonstration and instead try and place the blame on a video.

The friends and family of those killed that night also deserve HONEST answers.

So the Senate, which covered all of these issues and reached bipartisan conclusions was dishonest?

 

[FlapJacks]

Boston and Stinger Ray, please answer the question: The Senate spent an entire year and millions of dollars looking into this, and reached the conclusions I posted above. Why do we need to do this over again?

They spent millions on incomplete information, because the administration didn't fully comply with the subpoena....

 

[Stinger Ray]

Boston and Stinger Ray, please answer the question: The Senate spent an entire year and millions of dollars looking into this, and reached the conclusions I posted above. Why do we need to do this over again?

Based on the emails that came out last week that should have been released when it was subpoenaed there may be other documents that they could be hiding.Not knowing how long the attack would last (it lasted 7 hours), why were no US military assets dispatched to at least try to get to Benghazi in time to help?

Why have those responsible for the attack not been hunted down and captured?

Why did Obama lie for two weeks after the attacks about the video?

Why did they ignore all the intelligence they received that this wasn't about a demonstration and instead try and place the blame on a video.

The friends and family of those killed that night also deserve HONEST answers.

So the Senate, which covered all of these issues and reached bipartisan conclusions was dishonest?

nice try!

 

[tommyGunZ]

Boston and Stinger Ray, please answer the question: The Senate spent an entire year and millions of dollars looking into this, and reached the conclusions I posted above. Why do we need to do this over again?

They spent millions on incomplete information, because the administration didn't fully comply with the subpoena....

They didn't?

 

[timschochet]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

That's because Bush didn't blame a video.

 

[timschochet]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

That's because Bush didn't blame a video.

Just give it up. Can't you admit that, relative to all the attacks that took place during the Bush years, we are safer now? Can't you give Obama some credit for having simply a much superior foreign policy? It's ####### unbelievable.

 

[glock]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

That's because Bush didn't blame a video.

I still don't understand how the administrations attempt to avoid using the words "terrorist attack" immediately following spurred such outrage. Oh- unless that outrage was just as politically motivated.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

That's because Bush didn't blame a video.

I still don't understand how the administrations attempt to avoid using the words "terrorist attack" immediately following spurred such outrage. Oh- unless that outrage was just as politically motivated.

Probably because of the upcoming Presidential election.

 

[FlapJacks]

I would think the dems would welcome a hearing...right now the Obama administration has a serious issue when it comes to honesty...if you feel nothing happened here than hearings will show that, make the GOP look like political jerks

Didn't all of this already happen? From Wiki:

Senate Select Committee on IntelligenceThe U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence delivered their bipartisan report on the terrorist attacks on January 15, 2014. The majority of the committee offered the following conclusions:[257]

• The attacks were preventable.
• Fifteen people in Libya who have tried to help the FBI investigation have been killed.
• There were no protests in the area prior to the attack.
• Terrorists who participated in the attacks included members of al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Mohammad Jamal Network.
• No 'stand down' order was given by President Barack Obama or any other official anywhere in the government in terms of possible military efforts to combat the attackers, despite later reports.
• The "Benghazi attacks have been the subject of misinformed speculation and accusations long after the basic facts of the attacks have been determined, thereby distracting attention from more important concerns: the tragic deaths of four brave Americans, the hunt for their attackers, efforts by the U.S. Government to avoid future attacks, and the future of the U.S-Libya relationship."
• The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."
• No evidence was found of any effort to downplay the role of terrorists enacting a pre-planned strike in the Benghazi attacks.
• The reference to "al-Qa'ida" included in early drafts of the talking points was removed by CIA staff, not by the White House or the FBI, as was incorrectly alleged by some members of Congress and the press.
• The "CIA's September 15, 2012, talking points.. .wrongly attributed the genesis of the Benghazi attacks to protests that became violent. However, as stated in the report, this characterization reflected the assessment by the IC of the information available at that time, which lacked sufficient intelligence and eyewitness statements to conclude that there were no protests. Further, it is important to remember that this early assessment was made in the context of approximately 40 protests around the globe against U.S. embassies and consulates in response to an inflammatory film. There were also other violent attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other cities around the world on or after September 11."
• In general, the majority concluded "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes."

So why are we doing this all over again?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

Because in all such instances - which should be considered a continuation of the attacks on embassies and diplomatic targets by AQ dating to the late 90's under Clinton by the way - were always discussed as part of a real ongoing war on terror. Somehow the current president managed to try to shoehorn what happened in Libya outside of this rubric, which is either ignorance, incompetence or negligence of the highest order.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would think the dems would welcome a hearing...right now the Obama administration has a serious issue when it comes to honesty...if you feel nothing happened here than hearings will show that, make the GOP look like political jerks

Didn't all of this already happen? From Wiki:

Senate Select Committee on IntelligenceThe U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence delivered their bipartisan report on the terrorist attacks on January 15, 2014. The majority of the committee offered the following conclusions:[257]

• The attacks were preventable.
• Fifteen people in Libya who have tried to help the FBI investigation have been killed.
• There were no protests in the area prior to the attack.
• Terrorists who participated in the attacks included members of al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Mohammad Jamal Network.
• No 'stand down' order was given by President Barack Obama or any other official anywhere in the government in terms of possible military efforts to combat the attackers, despite later reports.
• The "Benghazi attacks have been the subject of misinformed speculation and accusations long after the basic facts of the attacks have been determined, thereby distracting attention from more important concerns: the tragic deaths of four brave Americans, the hunt for their attackers, efforts by the U.S. Government to avoid future attacks, and the future of the U.S-Libya relationship."
• The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."
• No evidence was found of any effort to downplay the role of terrorists enacting a pre-planned strike in the Benghazi attacks.
• The reference to "al-Qa'ida" included in early drafts of the talking points was removed by CIA staff, not by the White House or the FBI, as was incorrectly alleged by some members of Congress and the press.
• The "CIA's September 15, 2012, talking points.. .wrongly attributed the genesis of the Benghazi attacks to protests that became violent. However, as stated in the report, this characterization reflected the assessment by the IC of the information available at that time, which lacked sufficient intelligence and eyewitness statements to conclude that there were no protests. Further, it is important to remember that this early assessment was made in the context of approximately 40 protests around the globe against U.S. embassies and consulates in response to an inflammatory film. There were also other violent attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other cities around the world on or after September 11."
• In general, the majority concluded "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes."

So why are we doing this all over again?

Tim ,just go real the actual report, not the wiki summary.

This is what it says:

Quote

Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia,134 AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks. Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic; however, well-armed attackers easily overwhelmed the Libyan security guards and the five U.S. Diplomatic Security agents present at the Temporary Mission Facility. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.

Page 40, bottom:

http://s3.documentcl...on-benghazi.pdf

What that means is that they may have taken advantage of the timing of the video, and the fact that there had been protests elsewhere - and the fact that it was 9/11 anniversary by the way, though they don't mention that - but they clearly say it was terrorist elements who did it.

The Senate also did not have documents that are now uncovered, so the conclusions may be different.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Page 40, bottom:

http://s3.documentcl...on-benghazi.pdf

What that means is that they may have taken advantage of the timing of the video, and the fact that there had been protests elsewhere - and the fact that it was 9/11 anniversary by the way, though they don't mention that - but they clearly say it was terrorist elements who did it.

The Senate also did not have documents that are now uncovered, so the conclusions may be different.

How does that section undermine the talking points that are spurring this nonsense?

 

[tommyGunZ]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

This isn't going to sit well with the "both sides do it equally" crowd tim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Page 40, bottom:

http://s3.documentcl...on-benghazi.pdf

What that means is that they may have taken advantage of the timing of the video, and the fact that there had been protests elsewhere - and the fact that it was 9/11 anniversary by the way, though they don't mention that - but they clearly say it was terrorist elements who did it.

The Senate also did not have documents that are now uncovered, so the conclusions may be different.

How does that section undermine the talking points that are spurring this nonsense?

Ha, whose talking points?

We have outrage from the left over outrage from the right, where the left is claiming for political reasons that the right is claiming for political reasons that the president altered facts for political reasons.

I do agree it's a crazy way to run a country, but this is not our first rodeo. I don't think the CIA/NSA being political is ok, and having this rigamarole from Nixon to the Bushes and Reagan and Clinton on down the line I really am wondering more and more why there should be executive privilege. Sorry, why shouldn't any Congress find out whatever it wants?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Page 40, bottom:

http://s3.documentcl...on-benghazi.pdf

What that means is that they may have taken advantage of the timing of the video, and the fact that there had been protests elsewhere - and the fact that it was 9/11 anniversary by the way, though they don't mention that - but they clearly say it was terrorist elements who did it.

The Senate also did not have documents that are now uncovered, so the conclusions may be different.

How does that section undermine the talking points that are spurring this nonsense?

This is interesting..It seems Hillary knew that night there were no protests.

"We know from the public record that Clinton was getting real-time information on the attacks. She understood — because her own officials were telling her — that there were no protests in Benghazi and that the attacks on the Special Mission Compound and on the Annex were a well-planned terrorist assault.

And yet, after consulting by phone with President Obama at 10 that night, Hillary decided to blame it all on an Internet video."

"Top military officials at Africom headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, told me they watched live video feed from a Predator drone over the Special Mission Compound and later, over the Benghazi airport and the Annex, which clearly showed there were no protests. So far, that footage has not been released.

We know that orders were issued, then recalled, to deploy a 50-man Special Forces unit from Croatia that could have reached Benghazi within hours. But no documents on who ordered that unit to stand down have yet been released."

http://nypost.com/2014/05/03/benghazi-mess-points-to-hillary-and-possibly-criminal-cover-up/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

This isn't going to sit well with the "both sides do it equally" crowd tim.

The Demos could not raise this on Bush because at no point did Bush say it was anything other than terrorism, which it was.

It also highlights that we continue to undersecure our embassies and this has actually been going on since the late 90s by the way. It's been a part of an ongoing war on terrorism on the USA which has been underway since the first attacks in Kenya under Clinton IIRC. The only difference is that we have a president who seemed to want to wish this war away.

 

[tommyGunZ]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

This isn't going to sit well with the "both sides do it equally" crowd tim.

The Demos could not raise this on Bush because at no point did Bush say it was anything other than terrorism, which it was.

It also highlights that we continue to undersecure our embassies and this has actually been going on since the late 90s by the way. It's been a part of an ongoing war on terrorism on the USA which has been underway since the first attacks in Kenya under Clinton IIRC. The only difference is that we have a president who seemed to want to wish this war away.

Obama called this a "terrorist act" the very next day. The idea that we should be having multiple Senate committee investigations after spending the past 12 months investigating this stuff with hearings, committees, etc. because the administration highlighted that this might have been sparked by a video, which was backed by intelligence at the time, is beyond silly.

If only you scandal seekers were half as interested in the 9/11 intelligence failure as you are in this. The hypocrisy between this and what went on w/re to 9/11/01 is unbelievable.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

This isn't going to sit well with the "both sides do it equally" crowd tim.

The Demos could not raise this on Bush because at no point did Bush say it was anything other than terrorism, which it was.

It also highlights that we continue to undersecure our embassies and this has actually been going on since the late 90s by the way. It's been a part of an ongoing war on terrorism on the USA which has been underway since the first attacks in Kenya under Clinton IIRC. The only difference is that we have a president who seemed to want to wish this war away.

Obama called this a "terrorist act" the very next day. The idea that we should be having multiple Senate committee investigations after spending the past 12 months investigating this stuff with hearings, committees, etc. because the administration highlighted that this might have been sparked by a video, which was backed by intelligence at the time, is beyond silly.

If only you scandal seekers were half as interested in the 9/11 intelligence failure as you are in this. The hypocrisy between this and what went on w/re to 9/11/01 is unbelievable.

They IGNORED all the intelligence that stated their was no protest and the video wasn't to blame. Even Hillary knew that night it wasn't due to the video and yet Obama blamed the video for TWO weeks after the attacks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You want proof that this is nothing but political BS? I got this from Huffington Post- 13 attacks on our embassies and consulates that occurred during the Bush years:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

None of these attacks resulted in the demand for an investigation by Congress (much less two!) At no time did we ever hear that "the families deserve to know the truth!" No discussion of why there was no greater security. No questioning of where President Bush was.

This isn't going to sit well with the "both sides do it equally" crowd tim.

The Demos could not raise this on Bush because at no point did Bush say it was anything other than terrorism, which it was.

It also highlights that we continue to undersecure our embassies and this has actually been going on since the late 90s by the way. It's been a part of an ongoing war on terrorism on the USA which has been underway since the first attacks in Kenya under Clinton IIRC. The only difference is that we have a president who seemed to want to wish this war away.

Obama called this a "terrorist act" the very next day. The idea that we should be having multiple Senate committee investigations after spending the past 12 months investigating this stuff with hearings, committees, etc. because the administration highlighted that this might have been sparked by a video, which was backed by intelligence at the time, is beyond silly.

If only you scandal seekers were half as interested in the 9/11 intelligence failure as you are in this. The hypocrisy between this and what went on w/re to 9/11/01 is unbelievable.

Gunz, look at the Rose Garden transcript, he was not referring to the Benghazi attack. Admittedly if you might want to stretch it it might be vague, but that's cleared up because he kept referring to the video for another 2 weeks.

The 9/11/01 intelligence failures do have a good bit to do with this IMO, primarily because one big failure was failing or refusing to admit that terrorists had declared war and had been attacking our diplomatic sites as targets for years before the attacks on NYC &DC. Somehow we seem to be doing that exact same thing yet again.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Jon Stewart.

I'm not a big fan of defending one side by pointing out that the other side does it too. But that's not Stewart's point. He's not defending the Obama administration for any politically-motivated lies they told about national security issues by pointing out that the Bush administration did it too. Instead, he's casting a light on the double-standards of Fox News and its fans in their disparate reactions to similar behavior by the two administrations. And indeed, Fox News does seem to be a dedicated cheerleader for one team while constantly booing the other. As if that's news.

Fox News makes itself an easy target. But, of course, the other side does it too.

 

[pantagrapher]

Guys I think you're onto something here.