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

[FlapJacks]

Wondering if there's some intrigue in the dumping of Petraeus annd Carter Ham with respect to this....

 

[Johnnymac]

70 page thread on this....unreal.

 

[Sand]

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.

Fox is the only target on that side. You have about 7 targets on the other side to spread the attention.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

I actually watched this. The Kardashian joke was funny. And the point about how the GOP thinks that people just aren't educated on the issue reminds me of the Obama administration saying the same thing about the ACA.

But really what gets me is that after all that business about Iraq, and yada yada, and considering we have been either at war with terrorists or they have been at war with us since the 90s, you would think the first thing that would occur to our president is 'hey maybe there are terrorists attacking us' not 'gee, they are really pissed about that video'. I mean Obama actually ran in 08 on the statement that hey the war on terror might cause more terrorism and he's CIC over this actual, ongoing, very bloody almost 20 year old war and he thinks 'gosh I really need to get out front and apologize for this movie.' I agree Fox does everyone even their own cause a disservice by screaming 'conspiracy!' and 'smoking gun!' every 5 seconds but then journalism has been dead for a while now, hasn't it?

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/benghazi.html

 

[timschochet]

In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigated the attack for well over a year and issued a final report which I have summarized, the following investigations have also been conducted in 2013:

1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2. The House Armed Services Committee.

3. The House Foreign Affairs Committee.

4. The House Intelligence Committee.

5. The House Judiciary Committee.

6. The House Government and Oversight Committee.

7. The State Department Accountability Review Board

8. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs

That's 9 separate investigations, costing our government untold millions of dollars, and all of them reaching the same conclusions which I summarized earlier. But apparently this is not enough for Republicans: they are now demanding the formation of a special House Committee to investigate further: the House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. In addition, the Republican Senate leadership has promised that, if the GOP gets control of the Senate next January, there will be a newly formed special Senate Committee to conduct their own investigation, presumably the Senate Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigated the attack for well over a year and issued a final report which I have summarized, the following investigations have also been conducted in 2013:

1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2. The House Armed Services Committee.

3. The House Foreign Affairs Committee.

4. The House Intelligence Committee.

5. The House Judiciary Committee.

6. The House Government and Oversight Committee.

7. The State Department Accountability Review Board

8. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs

That's 9 separate investigations, costing our government untold millions of dollars, and all of them reaching the same conclusions which I summarized earlier. But apparently this is not enough for Republicans: they are now demanding the formation of a special House Committee to investigate further: the House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. In addition, the Republican Senate leadership has promised that, if the GOP gets control of the Senate next January, there will be a newly formed special Senate Committee to conduct their own investigation, presumably the Senate Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

How many of those investigations or the Senate investigations saw the emails just released?

 

[timschochet]

In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigated the attack for well over a year and issued a final report which I have summarized, the following investigations have also been conducted in 2013:

1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2. The House Armed Services Committee.

3. The House Foreign Affairs Committee.

4. The House Intelligence Committee.

5. The House Judiciary Committee.

6. The House Government and Oversight Committee.

7. The State Department Accountability Review Board

8. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs

That's 9 separate investigations, costing our government untold millions of dollars, and all of them reaching the same conclusions which I summarized earlier. But apparently this is not enough for Republicans: they are now demanding the formation of a special House Committee to investigate further: the House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. In addition, the Republican Senate leadership has promised that, if the GOP gets control of the Senate next January, there will be a newly formed special Senate Committee to conduct their own investigation, presumably the Senate Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

How many of those investigations or the Senate investigations saw the emails just released?

I have no idea. They're certainly not the smoking gun that you seem to think they are. And the idea of opening up new investigations after all this is absurd.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigated the attack for well over a year and issued a final report which I have summarized, the following investigations have also been conducted in 2013:

1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2. The House Armed Services Committee.

3. The House Foreign Affairs Committee.

4. The House Intelligence Committee.

5. The House Judiciary Committee.

6. The House Government and Oversight Committee.

7. The State Department Accountability Review Board

8. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs

That's 9 separate investigations, costing our government untold millions of dollars, and all of them reaching the same conclusions which I summarized earlier. But apparently this is not enough for Republicans: they are now demanding the formation of a special House Committee to investigate further: the House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. In addition, the Republican Senate leadership has promised that, if the GOP gets control of the Senate next January, there will be a newly formed special Senate Committee to conduct their own investigation, presumably the Senate Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

How many of those investigations or the Senate investigations saw the emails just released?

I have no idea. They're certainly not the smoking gun that you seem to think they are. And the idea of opening up new investigations after all this is absurd.

Tim, stop overstating the case, I have never used the word "smoking gun" or "conspiracy."

It does raises the question of just how many groups, bodies and investigators the WH has been withholding documents and emails from. Apparently at least 9, including the FBI. - Is that a crime?

 

[timschochet]

Those emails don't contradict anything that has already been determined. From the Senate Intelligence Report:

• 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."

This is what happened. The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't. They told the President it was the video, and he and the State Department thought it was. There was no deliberate falsehoods, no attempt to cover up what actually happened, none of that. Just a bunch of screw ups and misunderstandings. Can we move on?

 

[timschochet]

In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigated the attack for well over a year and issued a final report which I have summarized, the following investigations have also been conducted in 2013:

1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

2. The House Armed Services Committee.

3. The House Foreign Affairs Committee.

4. The House Intelligence Committee.

5. The House Judiciary Committee.

6. The House Government and Oversight Committee.

7. The State Department Accountability Review Board

8. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs

That's 9 separate investigations, costing our government untold millions of dollars, and all of them reaching the same conclusions which I summarized earlier. But apparently this is not enough for Republicans: they are now demanding the formation of a special House Committee to investigate further: the House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. In addition, the Republican Senate leadership has promised that, if the GOP gets control of the Senate next January, there will be a newly formed special Senate Committee to conduct their own investigation, presumably the Senate Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

How many of those investigations or the Senate investigations saw the emails just released?

I have no idea. They're certainly not the smoking gun that you seem to think they are. And the idea of opening up new investigations after all this is absurd.

Tim, stop overstating the case, I have never used the word "smoking gun" or "conspiracy."

It does raises the question of just how many groups, bodies and investigators the WH has been withholding documents and emails from. Apparently at least 9, including the FBI. - Is that a crime?

You overstate it with everything you write. Your first question implies that this email should be the basis for new investigations- what is that if not a "smoking gun."? Your second question implies that the White House has been withholding documents and emails on purpose. What proof do you have of this?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Those emails don't contradict anything that has already been determined. From the Senate Intelligence Report:

• 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."

This is what happened. The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't. They told the President it was the video, and he and the State Department thought it was. There was no deliberate falsehoods, no attempt to cover up what actually happened, none of that. Just a bunch of screw ups and misunderstandings. Can we move on?

Tim, why don't you look at the actual Senate report:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1005714/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-benghazi.pdf

Where is the support for this?

The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't.

 

[timschochet]

Those emails don't contradict anything that has already been determined. From the Senate Intelligence Report:

• 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."

This is what happened. The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't. They told the President it was the video, and he and the State Department thought it was. There was no deliberate falsehoods, no attempt to cover up what actually happened, none of that. Just a bunch of screw ups and misunderstandings. Can we move on?

Tim, why don't you look at the actual Senate report:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1005714/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-benghazi.pdf

Where is the support for this?

The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't.

I'm not going to read that whole report. The Wiki article summarized it as a screw-up (see the 4th paragraph down.) If Wiki got it wrong, you should attempt to correct it. (Except they didn't).

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Those emails don't contradict anything that has already been determined. From the Senate Intelligence Report:

• 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."

This is what happened. The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't. They told the President it was the video, and he and the State Department thought it was. There was no deliberate falsehoods, no attempt to cover up what actually happened, none of that. Just a bunch of screw ups and misunderstandings. Can we move on?

The CIA gave the information to the WH that they wanted to hear. The head of the CIA in Libya that night stated it wasn't due to a demonstration or the video. He was ignored. Hillary knew that night it wasn't the video yet after she spoke to Obama that night they changed their story. Gen. Robert Lovell, who served as deputy director of intelligence for U.S. Africa Command at the time of the attack, testified last week that our military intelligence community determined within hours that “there was no demonstration gone terribly awry” and that this was a terrorist attack.

This wasn't a bunch of screw ups and misunderstandings. It was politically motivated due to a Presidential election coming up.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Those emails don't contradict anything that has already been determined. From the Senate Intelligence Report:

• 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."

This is what happened. The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't. They told the President it was the video, and he and the State Department thought it was. There was no deliberate falsehoods, no attempt to cover up what actually happened, none of that. Just a bunch of screw ups and misunderstandings. Can we move on?

Tim, why don't you look at the actual Senate report:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1005714/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-benghazi.pdf

Where is the support for this?

The CIA screwed up. They thought it was the video, and it wasn't.

I'm not going to read that whole report. The Wiki article summarized it as a screw-up (see the 4th paragraph down.) If Wiki got it wrong, you should attempt to correct it. (Except they didn't).

Of course not.

It does say this though:

The DNI's Office of Analytic Integrity and Standards (AIS) failed to provide complete and accurate information to Congress during its review of the Benghazi attacks. The Committee found AIS's methodology in assembling documents to be flawed. Despite repeated requests from the Committee, AIS also refused to provide complete, accurate, and thoroughly cited information to Congress.

The Committee is concerned that AIS, the office within the Intelligence Community charged with setting and evaluating the standards for analysis, could perform so poorly in responding to a request from the Committee.

So how exactly could the Senate reach a proper conclusion, especially considering that new documents have indeed come to light?

 

[pizzatyme]

Honey, did you cheat on me? Nope.

Okay, I trust you.

6 months later...honey, what is this charge for roses and dinner on your credit card from 6 months ago? Nothing babe, I said I didn't cheat.

Another year later...honey, why is this guys crank in your mouth in this picture in your email? Seems like I should investigate further!

No babe, I said I didn't cheat 18 months ago. Why are you on a witch hunt?

 

[tommyboy]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

 

[timschochet]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.

1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months.

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations.

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video.

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie".

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not.

 

[Stinger Ray]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months.

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations.

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video.

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie".

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not.

Tim, get your head out of the sand please. Hillary Clinton and the WH knew when they sent Rice out that the video didn't cause the attack. I suggest you do some research on that. Military officials and the head of the CIA in Libya knew that night it wasn't due to a protest or video. The recent emails leaked do show that it was a strongly calculated political lie and anyone with common sense would see that.

And you know darn well if the people behind the attacks were caught or killed the WH would be pounding their chest letting everyone know they got them!

 

[timschochet]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months.

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations.

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video.

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie".

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not.

Tim, get your head out of the sand please. Hillary Clinton and the WH knew when they sent Rice out that the video didn't cause the attack. I suggest you do some research on that. Military officials and the head of the CIA in Libya knew that night it wasn't due to a protest or video. The recent emails leaked do show that it was a strongly calculated political lie and anyone with common sense would see that.

And you know darn well if the people behind the attacks were caught or killed the WH would be pounding their chest letting everyone know they got them!

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? If you have proof that Hillary and the WH knew it was a lie, show it. The Senate concluded there was no proof after a year of exhaustive research. And those emails prove no such thing. There is no discussion in those emails that it's a "strongly calculated political lie".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.

1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months.

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations.

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video.

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie".

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not.

Tim, as stated before, this is what the Senate actually says in its actual report:

The DNI's Office of Analytic Integrity and Standards (AIS) failed to provide complete and accurate information to Congress during its review of the Benghazi attacks. The Committee found AIS's methodology in assembling documents to be flawed. Despite repeated requests from the Committee, AIS also refused to provide complete, accurate, and thoroughly cited information to Congress.

The Committee is concerned that AIS, the office within the Intelligence Community charged with setting and evaluating the standards for analysis, could perform so poorly in responding to a request from the Committee.

So how exactly could the Senate reach a proper conclusion, especially considering that new documents have indeed come to light?

 

[timschochet]

I don't know, Saints. I wasn't there. But you keep quoting the same thing over and over. The fact is that the Senate committee DID reach several conclusions, so my deduction is that the AIS wasn't the only source they relied on. Otherwise, they could have announced that they were unable to reach any conclusions because the WH didn't furnish them enough information. But that's not what happened.

You want to take that one line and somehow use it to imply that the Senate didn't do it's job, that it's conclusions were incomplete, and that the 9 separate government investigations we had on this issue last year (not to mention the non-government investigative journalists who also researched this matter) were all wrong to offer conclusions, and that basically we should start over. Spend a bunch more millions and see if THIS TIME we can really get to the bottom of it.

 

[17seconds]

The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation.

I think you mean the anti-Obama right wing would be OK. Nobody else cared so much about how it was labelled.

..and that would also be wrong. There hasn't been a single negative event during Obama's time in office that the right hasn't found a way to jump all over. They wouldn't have been "ok" with any PR response you could dream up.

I mean, christ, they even found a way to complain about Osama Bin Laden being killed.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

With all the revisionist history and MMQBing it's worth rereading the article from the first post in the thread...

Cairo (CNN) -- In Cairo, several men scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy and tore down its American flag, according to CNN producer Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, who was on the scene.

In Libya, witnesses say members of a radical Islamist group called Ansar al-Sharia protested near the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where NATO jets established no-fly zones last year to blunt ground attacks from then Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

The group then clashed with security forces in the city, blocking roads leading to the consulate, witnesses said.

A U.S. State Department officer was killed in the violence in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement late Tuesday.

Clinton said that she condemned the attack on the U.S. facilities "in the strongest terms" and that following Tuesday's events, the U.S. government was "working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions and American citizens worldwide.""We are heartbroken by this terrible loss," Clinton said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack."

It was unclear whether the two attacks were coordinated, CNN national security contributor Fran Townsend said Tuesday night. "One such breach of an embassy or consulate's walls or security on any given day would be tremendous news. ... The fact that two of them happened on the same day that is the 9/11 anniversary where Americans are remembering those that we lost, you have to ask yourself, what are American officials trying to understand about this and whether or not these two are related?" she asked.

In Egypt, police and army personnel formed defensive lines around the U.S. Embassy in an effort to prevent demonstrators from advancing, but not before the protesters affixed a black flag atop a ladder in the American compound.

.

 

[DocHolliday]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.

1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months.

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations.

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video.

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie".

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not.

This is going to be a very funny post as more of this cover-up is exposed.

I wonder what Hillary's involvement is in all of this. Her little tirade when asked about that evening seems to indicate a bit of stress. I would have thought that she would be able to lie better after being married to Mr. Smooth for all of these years.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't know, Saints. I wasn't there. But you keep quoting the same thing over and over. The fact is that the Senate committee DID reach several conclusions, so my deduction is that the AIS wasn't the only source they relied on. Otherwise, they could have announced that they were unable to reach any conclusions because the WH didn't furnish them enough information. But that's not what happened.

You want to take that one line and somehow use it to imply that the Senate didn't do it's job, that it's conclusions were incomplete, and that the 9 separate government investigations we had on this issue last year (not to mention the non-government investigative journalists who also researched this matter) were all wrong to offer conclusions, and that basically we should start over. Spend a bunch more millions and see if THIS TIME we can really get to the bottom of it.

I'm not criticizing the Senate, I'm saying the Senate plainly stated they did not get all the information and thus their conclusions were incomplete. They were not wrong to make them in the first place. However while you're quoting wiki's summary of the Senate report, given that the Senate committee was majority Demo, wouldn't it also make sense to look at the House report?

http://www.speaker.gov/report/benghazi-interim-report

Also out of those 9 investigations, there were more reports, including some you have ignored from the wiki summary:

State Department Accountability Review BoardAs required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the State Department announced on October 4, 2012 an Accountability Review Board "to examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks."[262] Four members were selected by Clinton and another was selected by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as the Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen served as the Vice Chairman, also serving were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community.[96]

The investigation report[96] was released December 20, 2012. It was seen as a sharp criticism of State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests for more guards and safety upgrades, and for failing to adapt security procedures to a deteriorating security environment. "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," said the unclassified version of the report.[263] It also blamed too much reliance on local militias who failed to fend off the attackers that evening.[264] The Council on Foreign Relations in an initial report saw it as a refutation to the notion that the Obama administration delayed its response.[265] However, it confirmed that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate. It placed responsibility for the incident solely upon the attackers, deemed as terrorists.[266

That's by the State Department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._Diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi#cite_ref-262

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in part based on the belief in Iraq's nonexistent operational relationship with Al Qaeda following 9/11, despite multiple intelligence reports that there was no operational relationship with Iraq. Is this really a game worth playing?

 

[tommyboy]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.

1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations. hehe

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video. except apparently the administration and its minions

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video. this is just not true, as the recent Ben Rhodes email proves. But also Ben Rhodes brother who happens to be president of NBC news said right after the attack that "his sources" said it was a terrorist attack.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/16/nakoula-arrest-photoshops-best-of-the-best/

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie". sure there is

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not. I do because I read about this, which you obviously have not otherwise you'd know that NONE of the accused have been brought to justice yet

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

With all the revisionist history and MMQBing it's worth rereading the article from the first post in the thread...

Cairo (CNN) -- In Cairo, several men scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy and tore down its American flag, according to CNN producer Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, who was on the scene.

In Libya, witnesses say members of a radical Islamist group called Ansar al-Sharia protested near the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where NATO jets established no-fly zones last year to blunt ground attacks from then Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

The group then clashed with security forces in the city, blocking roads leading to the consulate, witnesses said.

A U.S. State Department officer was killed in the violence in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement late Tuesday.

Clinton said that she condemned the attack on the U.S. facilities "in the strongest terms" and that following Tuesday's events, the U.S. government was "working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions and American citizens worldwide.""We are heartbroken by this terrible loss," Clinton said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack."

It was unclear whether the two attacks were coordinated, CNN national security contributor Fran Townsend said Tuesday night. "One such breach of an embassy or consulate's walls or security on any given day would be tremendous news. ... The fact that two of them happened on the same day that is the 9/11 anniversary where Americans are remembering those that we lost, you have to ask yourself, what are American officials trying to understand about this and whether or not these two are related?" she asked.

In Egypt, police and army personnel formed defensive lines around the U.S. Embassy in an effort to prevent demonstrators from advancing, but not before the protesters affixed a black flag atop a ladder in the American compound.

.

This is something that was left out, it was in the actual OP:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. ...

And is it turns out this is what State actually knew on 9/12:

Responding to a question about whether the attack was linked to the Mohammed video, she said that she could not confirm a connect as we simply don't know - and won't know until there's an investigation.

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack. There will be a full investigation with which the FBI is assisting.

Pages 56-57, here:

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

This was compounded when instead of sending out Toria Nuland of State (mentioned there) who actually knew things, to talk about the event on morning talk shows, the administration sent out Susan Rice, who knew nothing.

No, I don't think it's a conspiracy. I do think it's bloody horrible incompetence.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This part...

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

.... is truly terrible.

 

[-fish-]

This part...

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

.... is truly terrible.

what about it?

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? If you have proof that Hillary and the WH knew it was a lie, show it. The Senate concluded there was no proof after a year of exhaustive research. And those emails prove no such thing. There is no discussion in those emails that it's a "strongly calculated political lie".

Meet the Press on NBC, terrible ignorance on your part or bonafide fisherman. The WH sends this lady days and days after the attack and turns her loose on Sunday Morning talk circuit with Meet the Depressed and she is saying repeatedly that this attack was a result of the video made circling the internet. C'mon now, enough of that malarky. And since that is not debatable and is in fact an actual factual fact, then accept the fact that Hillary and the WH knew this was not sparked by a Youtube video. You're drifting dangerously close to the birther conspirators friendo, is that where you want to be?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months.

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations.

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video.

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie".

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not.

Tim, get your head out of the sand please. Hillary Clinton and the WH knew when they sent Rice out that the video didn't cause the attack. I suggest you do some research on that. Military officials and the head of the CIA in Libya knew that night it wasn't due to a protest or video. The recent emails leaked do show that it was a strongly calculated political lie and anyone with common sense would see that.

And you know darn well if the people behind the attacks were caught or killed the WH would be pounding their chest letting everyone know they got them!

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? If you have proof that Hillary and the WH knew it was a lie, show it. The Senate concluded there was no proof after a year of exhaustive research. And those emails prove no such thing. There is no discussion in those emails that it's a "strongly calculated political lie".

I posted a link on page 69. I'm not surprised you ignored it. It's a shame that people like you aren't bright enough to realize you've been lied too and have no problems with it as they insult your intelligence.

 

[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.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in part based on the belief in Iraq's nonexistent operational relationship with Al Qaeda following 9/11, despite multiple intelligence reports that there was no operational relationship with Iraq. Is this really a game worth playing?

I didn't know Bush has anything to do with what happened in Benghazi.

 

[Stinger Ray]

maybe if they hadn't lied the entire 18 months, all these questions would have been resolved and there'd be no continuing investigations.

as it is, they have lied and they've withheld information. They've tried to cover up and hope this goes away.

Most people knew right away this was a terrorist attack, you can go back to my earliest posts in this thread I linked real time reporting that had it right, 18 months ago.

The fact the administration sent out Susan Rice 10 days after the fact to claim it was a video protest (and lets not forget Obama threw the guy in jail for a year) was

a strikingly calculated political lie, and was unnecessary. The US would have been ok if they would have just come out and said we got overrun, this was a terrorist attack and we will aggressively pursue retaliation. As it is, the only one that has paid a price (other than the 4 dead) is the guy Obama threw in jail for a year for the video. The leaders of the attack are still free and no one has been droned, or brought to justice.

Almost everything you wrote here is false.1. No evidence that they lied at all, much less for 18 months.

2. All of these questions HAVE been resolved, and there is no need for further investigations.

3. Most people did know that this was a terrorist attack; most people did NOT know that it was not connected to the video.

4. When the White House sent Rice out, they believed that the attack was caused by the video.

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

6. There is no evidence of a "strongly calculated political lie".

7. You have no idea whether these guys have been caught or not.

Tim, get your head out of the sand please. Hillary Clinton and the WH knew when they sent Rice out that the video didn't cause the attack. I suggest you do some research on that. Military officials and the head of the CIA in Libya knew that night it wasn't due to a protest or video. The recent emails leaked do show that it was a strongly calculated political lie and anyone with common sense would see that.

And you know darn well if the people behind the attacks were caught or killed the WH would be pounding their chest letting everyone know they got them!

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? If you have proof that Hillary and the WH knew it was a lie, show it. The Senate concluded there was no proof after a year of exhaustive research. And those emails prove no such thing. There is no discussion in those emails that it's a "strongly calculated political lie".

Do you know she watched the attacks take place that night? And anyone with a shred of common sense would see those emails do point to a strongly calculated political lie. The nonsense being spewed is by those that think that video caused that attack even with all concerns that Embassy expressed about their safety in the months leading up to the attack.

 

[FlapJacks]

maybe Tim is still going to try to blame Terry Jones....

 

[FlapJacks]

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in part based on the belief in Iraq's nonexistent operational relationship with Al Qaeda following 9/11, despite multiple intelligence reports that there was no operational relationship with Iraq. Is this really a game worth playing?

The bull#### is getting mighty deep in here....

 

[FlapJacks]

of course they knew

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.”

ooooooooooooooooooooooooof

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html

 

[Stinger Ray]

of course they knew

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.”

ooooooooooooooooooooooooof

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html

ooooooooooof is right. Oh Timmy..... Such a blind sheep.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This part...

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

.... is truly terrible.

what about it?

I realize that Basille was under probation, but I think it's just a terrible message - the guy made a movie, that offends people and at the root of it that's why he was arrested, and he got 1 year in jail for it. I realize there is a lot of other stuff in his record, but within 3 weeks he was basically jailed for putting this movie out.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/jailed-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-faces-3-years-in-prison.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-sentenced.html

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered Nakoula detained, citing a “lengthy pattern of deception” by the man, adding that he poses “some danger to the community.” Nakoula could face up to three years behind bars.

When probation officials questioned him about the video, Nakoula allegedly claimed his role was limited to writing the script, and denied ever using the name “Sam Bacile” in connection to the film, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale.

Dugdale said there is evidence Nakoula’s role in making “Innocence of Muslims” was “much more expansive” than penning the script. Prosecutors said Nakoula could face new criminal charges for lying to federal officials.

Dugdale said none of the violations Nakoula is accused of relate to use of the Internet, even though his probation terms specify he was not permitted to possess or use a device with access to the Internet without permission from his supervisor.

If he wasn't convicted of violating his probation terms - ie using the internet - then why did he go to jail? It reads to me like the judge based it on her assertion that he was a "danger to the community."

How crazy is that?

 

[timschochet]

of course they knew

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooof

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html

ooooooooooof is right. Oh Timmy..... Such a blind sheep.

Oh noes! Is this the smoking gun? OMG OMG

 

[Stinger Ray]

This part...

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

.... is truly terrible.

what about it?

I realize that Basille was under probation, but I think it's just a terrible message - the guy made a movie, that offends people and at the root of it that's why he was arrested, and he got 1 year in jail for it. I realize there is a lot of other stuff in his record, but within 3 weeks he was basically jailed for putting this movie out.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/jailed-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-faces-3-years-in-prison.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-sentenced.html

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered Nakoula detained, citing a “lengthy pattern of deception” by the man, adding that he poses “some danger to the community.” Nakoula could face up to three years behind bars.

When probation officials questioned him about the video, Nakoula allegedly claimed his role was limited to writing the script, and denied ever using the name “Sam Bacile” in connection to the film, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale.

Dugdale said there is evidence Nakoula’s role in making “Innocence of Muslims” was “much more expansive” than penning the script. Prosecutors said Nakoula could face new criminal charges for lying to federal officials.

Dugdale said none of the violations Nakoula is accused of relate to use of the Internet, even though his probation terms specify he was not permitted to possess or use a device with access to the Internet without permission from his supervisor.

If he wasn't convicted of violating his probation terms - ie using the internet - then why did he go to jail? It reads to me like the judge based it on her assertion that he was a "danger to the community."

How crazy is that?

Hillary said they'd arrest him to the father of Tyrone Woods at a memorial service 3 days after the attack. That's classy.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/02/father-seal-killed-benghazi-attacks-white-house-watched-battle-happen

Woods told Hannity he believed he'd been lied to repeatedly. "Hillary Clinton came up to me and I gave her a handshake and a hug, and when I shook her hand she said to me, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.' Even at that time she was trying to place a spin on what happened."

 

[squistion]

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? If you have proof that Hillary and the WH knew it was a lie, show it. The Senate concluded there was no proof after a year of exhaustive research. And those emails prove no such thing. There is no discussion in those emails that it's a "strongly calculated political lie".

Do you know she watched the attacks take place that night? And anyone with a shred of common sense would see those emails do point to a strongly calculated political lie. The nonsense being spewed is by those that think that video caused that attack even with all concerns that Embassy expressed about their safety in the months leading up to the attack.

False. per Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

 

[Stinger Ray]

of course they knew

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooof

http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html

ooooooooooof is right. Oh Timmy..... Such a blind sheep.

Oh noes! Is this the smoking gun? OMG OMG

Tim....you aren't very bright if you actually think based on all the evidence presented that Hillary and the WH didn't know what was going down that night. Keep it up....it's quite amusing and pathetic to watch you morph into Gunz.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? If you have proof that Hillary and the WH knew it was a lie, show it. The Senate concluded there was no proof after a year of exhaustive research. And those emails prove no such thing. There is no discussion in those emails that it's a "strongly calculated political lie".

Do you know she watched the attacks take place that night? And anyone with a shred of common sense would see those emails do point to a strongly calculated political lie. The nonsense being spewed is by those that think that video caused that attack even with all concerns that Embassy expressed about their safety in the months leading up to the attack.

False. per Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

Well that's to bad that she wasn't because you'd think that she would considering the attacks were over 7 hours and many of those under her did watch it. I guess she was too busy to show much concern to try and get help there for those that were killed. Maybe she was reviewing that video for 7 hours.

 

[timschochet]

This part...

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

.... is truly terrible.

what about it?

I realize that Basille was under probation, but I think it's just a terrible message - the guy made a movie, that offends people and at the root of it that's why he was arrested, and he got 1 year in jail for it. I realize there is a lot of other stuff in his record, but within 3 weeks he was basically jailed for putting this movie out.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/jailed-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-faces-3-years-in-prison.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-sentenced.html

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered Nakoula detained, citing a lengthy pattern of deception by the man, adding that he poses some danger to the community. Nakoula could face up to three years behind bars.

When probation officials questioned him about the video, Nakoula allegedly claimed his role was limited to writing the script, and denied ever using the name Sam Bacile in connection to the film, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale.

Dugdale said there is evidence Nakoulas role in making Innocence of Muslims was much more expansive than penning the script. Prosecutors said Nakoula could face new criminal charges for lying to federal officials.

Dugdale said none of the violations Nakoula is accused of relate to use of the Internet, even though his probation terms specify he was not permitted to possess or use a device with access to the Internet without permission from his supervisor.

If he wasn't convicted of violating his probation terms - ie using the internet - then why did he go to jail? It reads to me like the judge based it on her assertion that he was a "danger to the community."

How crazy is that?

Hillary said they'd arrest him to the father of Tyrone Woods at a memorial service 3 days after the attack. That's classy.http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/02/father-seal-killed-benghazi-attacks-white-house-watched-battle-happen

Woods told Hannity he believed he'd been lied to repeatedly. "Hillary Clinton came up to me and I gave her a handshake and a hug, and when I shook her hand she said to me, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.' Even at that time she was trying to place a spin on what happened."

So this guy believes, and you believe, that Hillary knowingly came up and lied to him at a memorial service? That she didn't really think the video was partly to blame? And that she decided to use the memorial service as a vehicle to further spread the lie? JFCIt's like you think Hillary and Obama are evil robots, lacking any human compassion. I have trouble thinking anyone can believe this.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in part based on the belief in Iraq's nonexistent operational relationship with Al Qaeda following 9/11, despite multiple intelligence reports that there was no operational relationship with Iraq. Is this really a game worth playing?

I didn't know Bush has anything to do with what happened in Benghazi.

Did you read the second half of the post you were replying to?

 

[Stinger Ray]

This part...

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

.... is truly terrible.

what about it?

I realize that Basille was under probation, but I think it's just a terrible message - the guy made a movie, that offends people and at the root of it that's why he was arrested, and he got 1 year in jail for it. I realize there is a lot of other stuff in his record, but within 3 weeks he was basically jailed for putting this movie out.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/jailed-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-faces-3-years-in-prison.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-sentenced.html

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered Nakoula detained, citing a lengthy pattern of deception by the man, adding that he poses some danger to the community. Nakoula could face up to three years behind bars.

When probation officials questioned him about the video, Nakoula allegedly claimed his role was limited to writing the script, and denied ever using the name Sam Bacile in connection to the film, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale.

Dugdale said there is evidence Nakoulas role in making Innocence of Muslims was much more expansive than penning the script. Prosecutors said Nakoula could face new criminal charges for lying to federal officials.Dugdale said none of the violations Nakoula is accused of relate to use of the Internet, even though his probation terms specify he was not permitted to possess or use a device with access to the Internet without permission from his supervisor.

If he wasn't convicted of violating his probation terms - ie using the internet - then why did he go to jail? It reads to me like the judge based it on her assertion that he was a "danger to the community."

How crazy is that?

Hillary said they'd arrest him to the father of Tyrone Woods at a memorial service 3 days after the attack. That's classy.http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/02/father-seal-killed-benghazi-attacks-white-house-watched-battle-happenWoods told Hannity he believed he'd been lied to repeatedly. "Hillary Clinton came up to me and I gave her a handshake and a hug, and when I shook her hand she said to me, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.' Even at that time she was trying to place a spin on what happened."

So this guy believes, and you believe, that Hillary knowingly came up and lied to him at a memorial service? That she didn't really think the video was partly to blame? And that she decided to use the memorial service as a vehicle to further spread the lie? JFCIt's like you think Hillary and Obama are evil robots, lacking any human compassion. I have trouble thinking anyone can believe this.

Very classy Tim....throw the father of one of the people killed that night under the bus by calling him a liar. You are a warped left wing hack.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This part...

5. Obama didn't "throw the guy in jail". The maker of the video broke the law and would have gone to jail regardless of Benghazi.

.... is truly terrible.

what about it?

I realize that Basille was under probation, but I think it's just a terrible message - the guy made a movie, that offends people and at the root of it that's why he was arrested, and he got 1 year in jail for it. I realize there is a lot of other stuff in his record, but within 3 weeks he was basically jailed for putting this movie out.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/jailed-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-faces-3-years-in-prison.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/innocence-muslims-filmmaker-sentenced.html

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered Nakoula detained, citing a lengthy pattern of deception by the man, adding that he poses some danger to the community. Nakoula could face up to three years behind bars.

When probation officials questioned him about the video, Nakoula allegedly claimed his role was limited to writing the script, and denied ever using the name Sam Bacile in connection to the film, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale.

Dugdale said there is evidence Nakoulas role in making Innocence of Muslims was much more expansive than penning the script. Prosecutors said Nakoula could face new criminal charges for lying to federal officials.

Dugdale said none of the violations Nakoula is accused of relate to use of the Internet, even though his probation terms specify he was not permitted to possess or use a device with access to the Internet without permission from his supervisor.

If he wasn't convicted of violating his probation terms - ie using the internet - then why did he go to jail? It reads to me like the judge based it on her assertion that he was a "danger to the community."

How crazy is that?

Hillary said they'd arrest him to the father of Tyrone Woods at a memorial service 3 days after the attack. That's classy.http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/02/father-seal-killed-benghazi-attacks-white-house-watched-battle-happen

Woods told Hannity he believed he'd been lied to repeatedly. "Hillary Clinton came up to me and I gave her a handshake and a hug, and when I shook her hand she said to me, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.' Even at that time she was trying to place a spin on what happened."

So this guy believes, and you believe, that Hillary knowingly came up and lied to him at a memorial service? That she didn't really think the video was partly to blame? And that she decided to use the memorial service as a vehicle to further spread the lie? JFCIt's like you think Hillary and Obama are evil robots, lacking any human compassion. I have trouble thinking anyone can believe this.

And Tim if you think that Hillary's belief in the video as cause of the attacks was heartfelt that she was wrong for wanting the man arrested?

And if true in her messed up world view she actually thought the proud father of this brave American really wanted the maker of the video brought to some kind of "justice"?

 

[Johnnymac]

I dont know what happened in benghazi and neither do most of the people in here. I have noticed in the last 25-30 years that when a democrat gets elected to the presidency the republicans seem to focus on doing everything they possibly can to extricate him from office. Clinton was dogged for years cuz he got a bj from an intern. The amount of taxpayer money spent on that farce was ridiculous. Obama has been attacked at every turn. Now I dont belong to either party and people who claim they do show their ignorance imo. Unless you are part of the 1% neither party represents you.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I dont know what happened in benghazi and neither do most of the people in here. I have noticed in the last 25-30 years that when a democrat gets elected to the presidency the republicans seem to focus on doing everything they possibly can to extricate him from office. Clinton was dogged for years cuz he got a bj from an intern. The amount of taxpayer money spent on that farce was ridiculous. Obama has been attacked at every turn. Now I dont belong to either party and people who claim they do show their ignorance imo. Unless you are part of the 1% neither party represents you.

Wait...you didn't notice ANYTHING the left was doing to Bush? Or maybe you purposefully skip over those years because the bolded sentence sounds better when you ignore the hate and venom the left spewed daily about him?