Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'll go get one from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    We know.

    [/QUOTE]

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following on yesterday’s Senate Select Committee’s Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya: 

    "The majority views of the SSCI report confirm a number of things long suspected about the Benghazi attacks. Our government was warned, and there were steps that could have been taken to protect Americans,” Sen. Cruz said. “But our people were left at significant risk against a known terrorist threat, and when the attack came, there was no help to send. After the attack, the Obama administration tried to mask its failure with false claims of a protest over an Internet video. All the while, the terrorists who carried out this attack are still at large. Most chilling, however, is the conclusion that the attacks were preventable in the first place.” 

    On the first anniversary of the attacks, Sen. Cruz filed a resolution (S. Res. 225 with 24 Republican co-sponsors) calling for a joint select committee that would put all the resources of both Houses of Congress behind a thorough investigation that could answer the basic questions that remain. For instance:

    • Why did any of this happen in the first place?
    • Why was there no appreciation for the repeated intelligence warnings about the security situation in Libya?
    • Why were the repeated requests for more protection refused?
    • Why were no military assets made ready near this acknowledged terrorist hot spot on the anniversary of September 11, 2001?
    • Why did the Obama administration falsely insist the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest over an Internet video?
    • Why has no one in our government been held accountable for these failures?
    • Why has no terrorist been punished for this outrage?

    “This most recent committee report is a valuable bi-partisan effort that demonstrates how reasonable people on both sides of the political aisle are inching closer to consensus on what happened before, during, and after the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi,” Cruz continued. “But it also starkly demonstrates that we are still far from getting clarity on why any of this happened. Unfortunately, this report thus raises more questions than answers. Until we can answer the basic questions that remain, we cannot in any way be confident that history, like the al Qaida terrorists who have attacked us so often, is not preparing to repeat itself. As the minority additional views conclude, the American people and, most importantly, the families of the victims deserve the truth."

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Cruz is pivoting to the security issues, because he's planning to use them against Clinton if he gets the nomination in 2016.  In fact, the irony is this all stems from the idea that Obama spun the tragedy of Benghazi for political reasons.  15 months later, there's no evidence to support that notion, but nearly everybody in Washington with an 'r' after their name has done exactly that.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think a spokesman for the senator, as reported by the Hill, is so much more credible than the findings of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Panetta, and Ham.

    The al quaida-ansar al shari activity and threats reported in April, June, and August, were most likely  just spontaneous demonstrators doing dress rehearsals for their upcoming choreographed reaction to an anti-muslim video.

    How foolish of me.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't read your own post, did you?  The part about Feinstein "not buying what the NYT is shilling?"  Yeah, here spokesman is the right person to call BS on that characterization.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Good, we agree.

                  I have no issue with any mistakes that were made.  Lack of response, stand-down rumors, ignored requests for more security, that resulted in 4 tragic deaths, are awful but there are mistakes made in every conflict. We should learn from those sad and tragic mistakes so they are avoided in the future.

                  The problem as I see it is the blatant lies and coverup after this tragedy.  We know that the adminstration knew this was a terrorist attack within minutes and deliberately lied to America and directly to the familes of the 4 victims.  That is despicable and yes it is a coverup and a conspiracy.

                  I voted for Obama twice and fully intended on voting for Hillary if she runs.  I have seen far too many lies and scandals from this group and will not vote for a democrat again.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'll go get one from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.



     

    We know.

    [/QUOTE]

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following on yesterday’s Senate Select Committee’s Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya: 

    "The majority views of the SSCI report confirm a number of things long suspected about the Benghazi attacks. Our government was warned, and there were steps that could have been taken to protect Americans,” Sen. Cruz said. “But our people were left at significant risk against a known terrorist threat, and when the attack came, there was no help to send. After the attack, the Obama administration tried to mask its failure with false claims of a protest over an Internet video. All the while, the terrorists who carried out this attack are still at large. Most chilling, however, is the conclusion that the attacks were preventable in the first place.” 

    On the first anniversary of the attacks, Sen. Cruz filed a resolution (S. Res. 225 with 24 Republican co-sponsors) calling for a joint select committee that would put all the resources of both Houses of Congress behind a thorough investigation that could answer the basic questions that remain. For instance:

    • Why did any of this happen in the first place?
    • Why was there no appreciation for the repeated intelligence warnings about the security situation in Libya?
    • Why were the repeated requests for more protection refused?
    • Why were no military assets made ready near this acknowledged terrorist hot spot on the anniversary of September 11, 2001?
    • Why did the Obama administration falsely insist the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest over an Internet video?
    • Why has no one in our government been held accountable for these failures?
    • Why has no terrorist been punished for this outrage?

    “This most recent committee report is a valuable bi-partisan effort that demonstrates how reasonable people on both sides of the political aisle are inching closer to consensus on what happened before, during, and after the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi,” Cruz continued. “But it also starkly demonstrates that we are still far from getting clarity on why any of this happened. Unfortunately, this report thus raises more questions than answers. Until we can answer the basic questions that remain, we cannot in any way be confident that history, like the al Qaida terrorists who have attacked us so often, is not preparing to repeat itself. As the minority additional views conclude, the American people and, most importantly, the families of the victims deserve the truth."

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Cruz is pivoting to the security issues, because he's planning to use them against Clinton if he gets the nomination in 2016.  In fact, the irony is this all stems from the idea that Obama spun the tragedy of Benghazi for political reasons.  15 months later, there's no evidence to support that notion, but nearly everybody in Washington with an 'r' after their name has done exactly that.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How can you say this?  We know Obama knew within minutes this was an al quaida connected attack.  He then spent 2 weeks telling the world it was reaction to an anti-muslim video.  You say that there is no evidence to support the notion that he was spinning for political reasons?  What other reasons would there be?

     No evidence?   A HoR investigation and report and a Senate investigation and report. Panetta`s words.  Ham`s words.  What more do you need?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think a spokesman for the senator, as reported by the Hill, is so much more credible than the findings of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Panetta, and Ham.

    The al quaida-ansar al shari activity and threats reported in April, June, and August, were most likely  just spontaneous demonstrators doing dress rehearsals for their upcoming choreographed reaction to an anti-muslim video.

    How foolish of me.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't read your own post, did you?  The part about Feinstein "not buying what the NYT is shilling?"  Yeah, here spokesman is the right person to call BS on that characterization.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Good, we agree.

                  I have no issue with any mistakes that were made.  Lack of response, stand-down rumors, ignored requests for more security, that resulted in 4 tragic deaths, are awful but there are mistakes made in every conflict. We should learn from those sad and tragic mistakes so they are avoided in the future.

                  The problem as I see it is the blatant lies and coverup after this tragedy.  We know that the adminstration knew this was a terrorist attack within minutes and deliberately lied to America and directly to the familes of the 4 victims.  That is despicable and yes it is a coverup and a conspiracy.

                  I voted for Obama twice and fully intended on voting for Hillary if she runs.  I have seen far too many lies and scandals from this group and will not vote for a democrat again.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you voted for Obama, then you're not ideologically pre-disposed to believe the worst in him, like most people on the wrong side of this issue.  That means you're just not well-informed.

    Read the Senate Report - the CIA thought this started as a protest because 1) there were protests occurring everywhere 2) Intelligence reports that terrorists would be using the protests as cover for attacks 3) false reports spread by Ansar Al Sharia of protests (and Americans firing on protestors) 4) Lack of eye-witness account of the start of the attack and 5) mis-communication between the FBI and CIA.

    The administration never said anything that wasn't supported by the assessment of the intellegince community at the time.  

    The only people who ever spun Benghazi for political points are the Republicans.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think a spokesman for the senator, as reported by the Hill, is so much more credible than the findings of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Panetta, and Ham.

    The al quaida-ansar al shari activity and threats reported in April, June, and August, were most likely  just spontaneous demonstrators doing dress rehearsals for their upcoming choreographed reaction to an anti-muslim video.

    How foolish of me.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't read your own post, did you?  The part about Feinstein "not buying what the NYT is shilling?"  Yeah, here spokesman is the right person to call BS on that characterization.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Good, we agree.

                  I have no issue with any mistakes that were made.  Lack of response, stand-down rumors, ignored requests for more security, that resulted in 4 tragic deaths, are awful but there are mistakes made in every conflict. We should learn from those sad and tragic mistakes so they are avoided in the future.

                  The problem as I see it is the blatant lies and coverup after this tragedy.  We know that the adminstration knew this was a terrorist attack within minutes and deliberately lied to America and directly to the familes of the 4 victims.  That is despicable and yes it is a coverup and a conspiracy.

                  I voted for Obama twice and fully intended on voting for Hillary if she runs.  I have seen far too many lies and scandals from this group and will not vote for a democrat again.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you voted for Obama, then you're not ideologically pre-disposed to believe the worst in him, like most people on the wrong side of this issue.  That means you're just not well-informed.

    Read the Senate Report - the CIA thought this started as a protest because 1) there were protests occurring everywhere 2) Intelligence reports that terrorists would be using the protests as cover for attacks 3) false reports spread by Ansar Al Sharia of protests (and Americans firing on protestors) 4) Lack of eye-witness account of the start of the attack and 5) mis-communication between the FBI and CIA.

    The administration never said anything that wasn't supported by the assessment of the intellegince community at the time.  

    The only people who ever spun Benghazi for political points are the Republicans.

    [/QUOTE]


    You need to read the Senate report and the HoR report. Talk about misinformed. How about Leon Panetta`s own words?  Obama and Clinton knew within one hour that this was a terror attack by al quaida and had nothing to do with protests or a video. Just because you will defend this adminstration blindly is no reason to be downright dishonest.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'll go get one from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

     



     

     

    We know.



    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following on yesterday’s Senate Select Committee’s Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya: 

    "The majority views of the SSCI report confirm a number of things long suspected about the Benghazi attacks. Our government was warned, and there were steps that could have been taken to protect Americans,” Sen. Cruz said. “But our people were left at significant risk against a known terrorist threat, and when the attack came, there was no help to send. After the attack, the Obama administration tried to mask its failure with false claims of a protest over an Internet video. All the while, the terrorists who carried out this attack are still at large. Most chilling, however, is the conclusion that the attacks were preventable in the first place.” 

    On the first anniversary of the attacks, Sen. Cruz filed a resolution (S. Res. 225 with 24 Republican co-sponsors) calling for a joint select committee that would put all the resources of both Houses of Congress behind a thorough investigation that could answer the basic questions that remain. For instance:

    • Why did any of this happen in the first place?
    • Why was there no appreciation for the repeated intelligence warnings about the security situation in Libya?
    • Why were the repeated requests for more protection refused?
    • Why were no military assets made ready near this acknowledged terrorist hot spot on the anniversary of September 11, 2001?
    • Why did the Obama administration falsely insist the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest over an Internet video?
    • Why has no one in our government been held accountable for these failures?
    • Why has no terrorist been punished for this outrage?

    “This most recent committee report is a valuable bi-partisan effort that demonstrates how reasonable people on both sides of the political aisle are inching closer to consensus on what happened before, during, and after the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi,” Cruz continued. “But it also starkly demonstrates that we are still far from getting clarity on why any of this happened. Unfortunately, this report thus raises more questions than answers. Until we can answer the basic questions that remain, we cannot in any way be confident that history, like the al Qaida terrorists who have attacked us so often, is not preparing to repeat itself. As the minority additional views conclude, the American people and, most importantly, the families of the victims deserve the truth."

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Cruz is pivoting to the security issues, because he's planning to use them against Clinton if he gets the nomination in 2016.  In fact, the irony is this all stems from the idea that Obama spun the tragedy of Benghazi for political reasons.  15 months later, there's no evidence to support that notion, but nearly everybody in Washington with an 'r' after their name has done exactly that.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How can you say this?  We know Obama knew within minutes this was an al quaida connected attack.  He then spent 2 weeks telling the world it was reaction to an anti-muslim video.  You say that there is no evidence to support the notion that he was spinning for political reasons?  What other reasons would there be?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If you're open-minded, go re-read the quotes from that time period from the administration (not the sources trying to spin them) that are upsetting to you with the following things in mind...

    1) The official word from the IC was that there was a protest.  They didn't change their assessment until 9/24.  Even then, they described it as a hybrid protest / attack.

    2) There were still protests happening all over the world, many of them violent, some fatal.  They did not get the press of Benghazi, but they were still happening all over the world.

    The right wants you to believe that every quote from the administration regarding the video was part of a coverup.  If you look at them in this context, you can see the response regarding the video was not meant to explain away Benghazi, but to prevent another one.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think a spokesman for the senator, as reported by the Hill, is so much more credible than the findings of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Panetta, and Ham.

    The al quaida-ansar al shari activity and threats reported in April, June, and August, were most likely  just spontaneous demonstrators doing dress rehearsals for their upcoming choreographed reaction to an anti-muslim video.

    How foolish of me.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't read your own post, did you?  The part about Feinstein "not buying what the NYT is shilling?"  Yeah, here spokesman is the right person to call BS on that characterization.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Good, we agree.

                  I have no issue with any mistakes that were made.  Lack of response, stand-down rumors, ignored requests for more security, that resulted in 4 tragic deaths, are awful but there are mistakes made in every conflict. We should learn from those sad and tragic mistakes so they are avoided in the future.

                  The problem as I see it is the blatant lies and coverup after this tragedy.  We know that the adminstration knew this was a terrorist attack within minutes and deliberately lied to America and directly to the familes of the 4 victims.  That is despicable and yes it is a coverup and a conspiracy.

                  I voted for Obama twice and fully intended on voting for Hillary if she runs.  I have seen far too many lies and scandals from this group and will not vote for a democrat again.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you voted for Obama, then you're not ideologically pre-disposed to believe the worst in him, like most people on the wrong side of this issue.  That means you're just not well-informed.

    Read the Senate Report - the CIA thought this started as a protest because 1) there were protests occurring everywhere 2) Intelligence reports that terrorists would be using the protests as cover for attacks 3) false reports spread by Ansar Al Sharia of protests (and Americans firing on protestors) 4) Lack of eye-witness account of the start of the attack and 5) mis-communication between the FBI and CIA.

    The administration never said anything that wasn't supported by the assessment of the intellegince community at the time.  

    The only people who ever spun Benghazi for political points are the Republicans.

    [/QUOTE]


    You need to read the Senate report and the HoR report. Talk about misinformed. How about Leon Panetta`s own words?  Obama and Clinton knew within one hour that this was a terror attack by al quaida and had nothing to do with protests or a video. Just because you will defend this adminstration blindly is no reason to be downright dishonest.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's just semantics.  A heavily armed militia comprised of Muslim extremists attacked the consulate because they were angry over the video.  They had easy access to heavy artillery, devised a plan in a single day, and easily breached the gates.  Once inside, they spread the rumor that Americans had killed Libyan protestors, and let anybody who wanted to join the fray.  Now you have Ansar al Sharia, other angry militia members, and civilians all burning, looting, and throwing things all over the compound.

    Is this

    a) a terrorist attack

    b) an act of terror

    c) an angry mob action

    d) folks targeting Americans

    e) a violent protest

    f) all of the above

    and a follow up question: "what difference does it make"?

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think a spokesman for the senator, as reported by the Hill, is so much more credible than the findings of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Panetta, and Ham.

    The al quaida-ansar al shari activity and threats reported in April, June, and August, were most likely  just spontaneous demonstrators doing dress rehearsals for their upcoming choreographed reaction to an anti-muslim video.

    How foolish of me.



    You didn't read your own post, did you?  The part about Feinstein "not buying what the NYT is shilling?"  Yeah, here spokesman is the right person to call BS on that characterization.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Good, we agree.

                  I have no issue with any mistakes that were made.  Lack of response, stand-down rumors, ignored requests for more security, that resulted in 4 tragic deaths, are awful but there are mistakes made in every conflict. We should learn from those sad and tragic mistakes so they are avoided in the future.

                  The problem as I see it is the blatant lies and coverup after this tragedy.  We know that the adminstration knew this was a terrorist attack within minutes and deliberately lied to America and directly to the familes of the 4 victims.  That is despicable and yes it is a coverup and a conspiracy.

                  I voted for Obama twice and fully intended on voting for Hillary if she runs.  I have seen far too many lies and scandals from this group and will not vote for a democrat again.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you voted for Obama, then you're not ideologically pre-disposed to believe the worst in him, like most people on the wrong side of this issue.  That means you're just not well-informed.

    Read the Senate Report - the CIA thought this started as a protest because 1) there were protests occurring everywhere 2) Intelligence reports that terrorists would be using the protests as cover for attacks 3) false reports spread by Ansar Al Sharia of protests (and Americans firing on protestors) 4) Lack of eye-witness account of the start of the attack and 5) mis-communication between the FBI and CIA.

    The administration never said anything that wasn't supported by the assessment of the intellegince community at the time.  

    The only people who ever spun Benghazi for political points are the Republicans.

    [/QUOTE]


    You need to read the Senate report and the HoR report. Talk about misinformed. How about Leon Panetta`s own words?  Obama and Clinton knew within one hour that this was a terror attack by al quaida and had nothing to do with protests or a video. Just because you will defend this adminstration blindly is no reason to be downright dishonest.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's just semantics.  A heavily armed militia comprised of Muslim extremists attacked the consulate because they were angry over the video.  They had easy access to heavy artillery, devised a plan in a single day, and easily breached the gates.  Once inside, they spread the rumor that Americans had killed Libyan protestors, and let anybody who wanted to join the fray.  Now you have Ansar al Sharia, other angry militia members, and civilians all burning, looting, and throwing things all over the compound.

    Is this

    a) a terrorist attack

    b) an act of terror

    c) an angry mob action

    d) folks targeting Americans

    e) a violent protest

    f) all of the above

    and a follow up question: "what difference does it make"?

     

    [/QUOTE]


                  The difference is the fact that in one hour they knew it was terror, who was responsible, and they lied deliberately for weeks because it did not support the election cycle narrative.  It`s obvious.

                 You are going from Republican lies and spin to what difference does it make?

                 It is good that you finally get that your president and sec of state lied their faces off to you.

                Congratulations.  Maybe you will change how you vote too. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    I love reading pasted talking points by partisans bottom feeders ....... btw Americans will continue to die in the war on terror for a long time to come and that is exactly what happened to those 4 brave Americans

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    I love reading pasted talking points by partisans bottom feeders ....... btw Americans will continue to die in the war on terror for a long time to come and that is exactly what happened to those 4 brave Americans




    But wait, people here are dishonoring those 4 fine Americans by saying they did not die in the war on terror.  People here are saying they died from a spontaneous demonstration and reaction to a video.  Obama, Clinton, and Rice dishonored these people also.  They told mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children , and grandparents, of these 4 fine men, a despicable lie to protect Obama from a political defeat. A true coverup and conspiracy was sold to us by these charlatans.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I love reading pasted talking points by partisans bottom feeders ....... btw Americans will continue to die in the war on terror for a long time to come and that is exactly what happened to those 4 brave Americans

    [/QUOTE]


    But wait, people here are dishonering those 4 fine Americans by saying they did not die in the war on terror.  People here are saying they died from a spontaneous demonstration and reaction to a video.  Obama, Clinton, and Rice dishonered these people also.  They told mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children , and grandparents, of these 4 fine men, a despicable lie to protect Obama from a political defeat. A true coverup and conspiracy was sold to us by these charlatans.  

    [/QUOTE]


    "Charlatans" how dare you defame FAUX NEWS like that ......

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I love reading pasted talking points by partisans bottom feeders ....... btw Americans will continue to die in the war on terror for a long time to come and that is exactly what happened to those 4 brave Americans

    [/QUOTE]


    But wait, people here are dishonering those 4 fine Americans by saying they did not die in the war on terror.  People here are saying they died from a spontaneous demonstration and reaction to a video.  Obama, Clinton, and Rice dishonered these people also.  They told mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children , and grandparents, of these 4 fine men, a despicable lie to protect Obama from a political defeat. A true coverup and conspiracy was sold to us by these charlatans.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Dishonoring. 

    Do you know why Ansar Al Sharia is no longer in Benghazi?  Because when Libyans discovered they were responsible for the attack, hundreds banded together to storm the militia's HQ, pulling down their flags, torching their vehicles, and forcing them out of the region.

    An American ambassador turned hearts and minds against their own countrymen, and inspired mobilization and action.  That's how you win the war on terror.  Chris Stevens was not just fighting the war on terror - he was our greatest weapon.  

    This is the story that should have lasted for 15 months.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I love reading pasted talking points by partisans bottom feeders ....... btw Americans will continue to die in the war on terror for a long time to come and that is exactly what happened to those 4 brave Americans

    [/QUOTE]


    But wait, people here are dishonering those 4 fine Americans by saying they did not die in the war on terror.  People here are saying they died from a spontaneous demonstration and reaction to a video.  Obama, Clinton, and Rice dishonered these people also.  They told mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children , and grandparents, of these 4 fine men, a despicable lie to protect Obama from a political defeat. A true coverup and conspiracy was sold to us by these charlatans.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Dishonoring. 

    Do you know why Ansar Al Sharia is no longer in Benghazi?  Because when Libyans discovered they were responsible for the attack, hundreds banded together to storm the militia's HQ, pulling down their flags, torching their vehicles, and forcing them out of the region.

    An American ambassador turned hearts and minds against their own countrymen, and inspired mobilization and action.  That's how you win the war on terror.  Chris Stevens was not just fighting the war on terror - he was our greatest weapon.  

    This is the story that should have lasted for 15 months.

     

    [/QUOTE] its sad that they have been so willing to drag Stevens legacy through the mud in order to score some political points.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I love reading pasted talking points by partisans bottom feeders ....... btw Americans will continue to die in the war on terror for a long time to come and that is exactly what happened to those 4 brave Americans

    [/QUOTE]


    But wait, people here are dishonering those 4 fine Americans by saying they did not die in the war on terror.  People here are saying they died from a spontaneous demonstration and reaction to a video.  Obama, Clinton, and Rice dishonered these people also.  They told mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children , and grandparents, of these 4 fine men, a despicable lie to protect Obama from a political defeat. A true coverup and conspiracy was sold to us by these charlatans.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Dishonoring. 

    Do you know why Ansar Al Sharia is no longer in Benghazi?  Because when Libyans discovered they were responsible for the attack, hundreds banded together to storm the militia's HQ, pulling down their flags, torching their vehicles, and forcing them out of the region.

    An American ambassador turned hearts and minds against their own countrymen, and inspired mobilization and action.  That's how you win the war on terror.  Chris Stevens was not just fighting the war on terror - he was our greatest weapon.  

    This is the story that should have lasted for 15 months.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No longer in Benghazi?  Correct, they are in Derna, Libya planning their next spontaneous reaction.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans




    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

    [/QUOTE]


    I forgot ... you attended the funerals for each of those 4 brave men didn't you .... btw didn't that bipartisan senate report state that the intel community came up with the notion that the video was the cause of the attack ..... a CIC depending on faulty intel ..... now where did I hear that before

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

     

     




     

     

    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?




    I forgot ... you attended the funerals for each of those 4 brave men didn't you .... btw didn't that bipartisan senate report state that the intel community came up with the notion that the video was the cause of the attack ..... a CIC depending on faulty intel ..... now where did I hear that before

     

    [/QUOTE]

                      No, I watched them on TV like everyone else in America, (maybe not you) and saw the president and the SoS say from the podium that it was reaction to a video and people would be caught and punished.  I also saw two sets of parents of the victims interviewed on national TV and both said Obama and Clinton told them their sons died from a reaction to an anti-muslim video and spontaneous protest.  I find it disturbing that you would post on this topic and not know this simple fact.

                      Both the House report and the Senate report say terrorist attack by al quaida- ansar al sharia, they both say there were no demonstrations at that time, the attack was not a reaction to a video it was well planned, and that the president and the SoS knew this within one hour.

                     You may want to read them. They are posted in this thread. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nobody said that.  Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by 'an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.'  That is 100% true - just like the Camp Bastion attacks, or the suicide bomber who killed 14 people in Afghanistan on 9/18.  Just like the hundreds of people who died due to violence prompted by Danish cartoon editorials.

    What do you think Ansar al Sharia's motives were, if not the youtube video?  Their only other acts since coming into existence were 1) declaring Sharia law in Benghazi and 2) destroying the Sufi shrines.  Sufism is a branch of Islam.  These guys were so hard-core, they wouldn't even allow a slightly different interpretation of their own religion.  But you think they were OK with a movie about Mohammed being a child molester?

    You were thinking what Glenn Beck told you think.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

     

     




     

     

    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I forgot ... you attended the funerals for each of those 4 brave men didn't you .... btw didn't that bipartisan senate report state that the intel community came up with the notion that the video was the cause of the attack ..... a CIC depending on faulty intel ..... now where did I hear that before

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

                      No, I watched them on TV like everyone else in America, (maybe not you) and saw the president and the SoS say from the podium that it was reaction to a video and people would be caught and punished.  I also saw two sets of parents of the victims interviewed on national TV and both said Obama and Clinton told them their sons died from a reaction to an anti-muslim video and spontaneous protest.  I find it disturbing that you would post on this topic and not know this simple fact.

                      Both the House report and the Senate report say terrorist attack by al quaida- ansar al sharia, they both say there were no demonstrations at that time, the attack was not a reaction to a video it was well planned, and that the president and the SoS knew this within one hour.

                     You may want to read them. They are posted in this thread. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Right, you don't read your own posts, but you read the Senate report.

    Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia are not one in the same.  Not even close.  But if you believe Al Qaeda was responsible, this is what they said about the attack:

    “The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

    And if you believe Ansar al Sharia is responsible, this is what their leader said:

    "The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect," Abu Khattala said. "If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force."

    Both blame the video.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

     

     




     

     

    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

     

     




    I forgot ... you attended the funerals for each of those 4 brave men didn't you .... btw didn't that bipartisan senate report state that the intel community came up with the notion that the video was the cause of the attack ..... a CIC depending on faulty intel ..... now where did I hear that before

     

     

     



                      No, I watched them on TV like everyone else in America, (maybe not you) and saw the president and the SoS say from the podium that it was reaction to a video and people would be caught and punished.  I also saw two sets of parents of the victims interviewed on national TV and both said Obama and Clinton told them their sons died from a reaction to an anti-muslim video and spontaneous protest.  I find it disturbing that you would post on this topic and not know this simple fact.

                      Both the House report and the Senate report say terrorist attack by al quaida- ansar al sharia, they both say there were no demonstrations at that time, the attack was not a reaction to a video it was well planned, and that the president and the SoS knew this within one hour.

                     You may want to read them. They are posted in this thread. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Right, you don't read your own posts, but you read the Senate report.

    Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia are not one in the same.  Not even close.  But if you believe Al Qaeda was responsible, this is what they said about the attack:

    “The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

    And if you believe Ansar al Sharia is responsible, this is what their leader said:

    "The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect," Abu Khattala said. "If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force."

    Both blame the video.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Click the link for the 85 pg report.  I would urge you to read pgs 9,10, and 15, and the summation at the very end.

    FYI, I have never watched, read, or listened to Glenn Beck and could not pick him out of a lineup to save my life.

     

     

    Senate Report on Benghazi Terrorist Attack Confirms Failures in Obama Administration      

    A detailed report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the events in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens at the U.S. consulate in Libya, confirmed that President Barack Obama's administration failed to do anything to stop the terrorist attack.

    "The failures of Benghazi can be summed up this way: the Americans serving in Libya were vulnerable; the State Department knew they were vulnerable; and no one in the Administration really did anything about it," the 85-page report released on Wednesday stated in its conclusion.

    The report, which stated that "the attacks were preventable," added that the role of the White House in the events must be explored, as the Senate remains "without a full understanding" of the talks held between President Obama, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state on the night of the attacks.

    The Obama administration has been criticized for the apparent failure to increase security at the Libyan embassy in preparation of the 9/11 anniversary despite intelligence warnings. On the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists stormed the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA annex in the city with guns and bombs, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

    Although the Obama administration initially blamed the attack on a controversial Youtube video on the Islamic faith made by a U.S. citizen and said it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, the State Department later  confirmed that what went on was a pre-conceived attack from terrorist groups Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah.

    The Senate report criticized the Obama administration's failure to admit that these were terrorist attacks, and said that officials were "inconsistent and at times misleading in their public statements and failed for days to make clear to the American people that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack."

     

    Several congressional investigations and hearings have since been held on the U.S. government's knowledge and lack of action ahead of the attacks.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a January 2013 hearing that she takes responsibility for the situation, but denied any knowledge that Stevens himself had expressed "deep and grave concerns about security in Benghazi" two months before his death.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny," Clinton said at the time.

    The Obama administration also said that it discussed concerns and appropriate actions with top security officials the night before the Benghazi attack, releasing a press release titled "Readout of the President's Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th."

    Fox News reported on Tuesday, however, that it obtained "Top Secret" documents revealing that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress last year and revealed that the meeting on the eve of the attacks was simply a "conference call" and that Libya was never even discussed.

    "The four Americans who perished in Benghazi deserved better from their country. Their families, who have been waiting over a year for promised justice and answers, are entitled to know the truth about what happened and why," the Senate report noted in its conclusion.

    U.S. Senator for Maine Susan Collins argued that "a broken system overseen by senior leadership contributed to the vulnerability of U.S. diplomats and other American personnel in one of the most dangerous cities in the world," describing that as "unacceptable" and criticizing the secretary of state for holding no one accountable for those failures.

    Collins added that the responsibility for the attacks lies on the shoulders of the attackers themselves, but noted that Obama and other senior administration officials have so far failed to bring the perpetrators to justice.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

     

     




     

     

    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

     

     




    I forgot ... you attended the funerals for each of those 4 brave men didn't you .... btw didn't that bipartisan senate report state that the intel community came up with the notion that the video was the cause of the attack ..... a CIC depending on faulty intel ..... now where did I hear that before

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

                      No, I watched them on TV like everyone else in America, (maybe not you) and saw the president and the SoS say from the podium that it was reaction to a video and people would be caught and punished.  I also saw two sets of parents of the victims interviewed on national TV and both said Obama and Clinton told them their sons died from a reaction to an anti-muslim video and spontaneous protest.  I find it disturbing that you would post on this topic and not know this simple fact.

     

                      Both the House report and the Senate report say terrorist attack by al quaida- ansar al sharia, they both say there were no demonstrations at that time, the attack was not a reaction to a video it was well planned, and that the president and the SoS knew this within one hour.

                     You may want to read them. They are posted in this thread. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Right, you don't read your own posts, but you read the Senate report.

    Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia are not one in the same.  Not even close.  But if you believe Al Qaeda was responsible, this is what they said about the attack:

    “The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

    And if you believe Ansar al Sharia is responsible, this is what their leader said:

    "The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect," Abu Khattala said. "If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force."

    Both blame the video.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Click the link for the 85 pg report.  I would urge you to read pgs 9,10, and 15, and the summation at the very end.

    FYI, I have never watched, read, or listened to Glenn Beck and could not pick him out of a lineup to save my life.

     

     

    Senate Report on Benghazi Terrorist Attack Confirms Failures in Obama Administration      

    A detailed report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the events in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens at the U.S. consulate in Libya, confirmed that President Barack Obama's administration failed to do anything to stop the terrorist attack.

    "The failures of Benghazi can be summed up this way: the Americans serving in Libya were vulnerable; the State Department knew they were vulnerable; and no one in the Administration really did anything about it," the 85-page report released on Wednesday stated in its conclusion.

    The report, which stated that "the attacks were preventable," added that the role of the White House in the events must be explored, as the Senate remains "without a full understanding" of the talks held between President Obama, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state on the night of the attacks.

    The Obama administration has been criticized for the apparent failure to increase security at the Libyan embassy in preparation of the 9/11 anniversary despite intelligence warnings. On the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists stormed the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA annex in the city with guns and bombs, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

    Although the Obama administration initially blamed the attack on a controversial Youtube video on the Islamic faith made by a U.S. citizen and said it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, the State Department later  confirmed that what went on was a pre-conceived attack from terrorist groups Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah.

    The Senate report criticized the Obama administration's failure to admit that these were terrorist attacks, and said that officials were "inconsistent and at times misleading in their public statements and failed for days to make clear to the American people that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack."

     

    Several congressional investigations and hearings have since been held on the U.S. government's knowledge and lack of action ahead of the attacks.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a January 2013 hearing that she takes responsibility for the situation, but denied any knowledge that Stevens himself had expressed "deep and grave concerns about security in Benghazi" two months before his death.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny," Clinton said at the time.

    The Obama administration also said that it discussed concerns and appropriate actions with top security officials the night before the Benghazi attack, releasing a press release titled "Readout of the President's Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th."

    Fox News reported on Tuesday, however, that it obtained "Top Secret" documents revealing that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress last year and revealed that the meeting on the eve of the attacks was simply a "conference call" and that Libya was never even discussed.

    "The four Americans who perished in Benghazi deserved better from their country. Their families, who have been waiting over a year for promised justice and answers, are entitled to know the truth about what happened and why," the Senate report noted in its conclusion.

    U.S. Senator for Maine Susan Collins argued that "a broken system overseen by senior leadership contributed to the vulnerability of U.S. diplomats and other American personnel in one of the most dangerous cities in the world," describing that as "unacceptable" and criticizing the secretary of state for holding no one accountable for those failures.

    Collins added that the responsibility for the attacks lies on the shoulders of the attackers themselves, but noted that Obama and other senior administration officials have so far failed to bring the perpetrators to justice.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You should link to your sources.  To date, the only TV interview I'm aware of is from Tyrone Woods's father was on the Glenn Beck show.  What you saw on "national television" was in all probability a clip from that show.  Your latest post is an article from "The Christian Post", and makes reference to Fox News Reports.  The same Fox News who brought you every false narrative to date about Benghazi ... http://www.christianpost.com/news/senate-report-on-benghazi-terrorist-attack-confirms-failures-in-obama-administration-112759/

    That aside, page 15 of the Senate report pivots to the lack of security in Benghazi, which I think raises valid questions.  I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that State Department let him down, but it's certainly a possibility.  Either way, it's not really relevant to your assertion that the administration obviously covered up a terrorist attack for political expediency.

    By "summary at the very end", I'll assume you're talking about Susan Collins's intepretation.  I'm not even going to bother to read it, because she has too much skin the game.  She, McCain and Lindsay Graham have been banging the Benghazi Drum since day one - they're all in.  They're not going to throw up their hands now and say sorry.

    Pages 9-10 of the Senate report detail increased threats of terrorism and extremist groups in the region, and the desire of these groups to target American interests.  

    I can see how you can point to those pages as support for the idea that we should have seen this as more a terrorist act than an act of religious extremist rage, but there is very little reference to Ansar al Sharia, which had never taken any action that did not center around religion and it's perversion of Islam.

    OK, I've read the pages you directed me to.  Now you read pages 34 - 35, and tell me on what date did the CIA determine that there was no protest preceding the attack?  And once you have your answer, produce any quote at any time from anybody in the administration that contradicts the beliefs of the Intelligence Community?  I don't want to hear about emails or some weird game of telephone you've concocted in your mind where General Ham says something to Leon Panetta, and Panetta then bursts into the Oval Office to tell Obama, who then rushes to the nearest camera.  I want you to stop... think... and find a quote that, given the nature of Ansar Al Sharia, and the opinion of the Intelligence Community at the time, implicates the administration of mis-leading anybody in any way.

     

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

     

     




     

     

    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

     

     




    I forgot ... you attended the funerals for each of those 4 brave men didn't you .... btw didn't that bipartisan senate report state that the intel community came up with the notion that the video was the cause of the attack ..... a CIC depending on faulty intel ..... now where did I hear that before

     

     

     

     

     



                      No, I watched them on TV like everyone else in America, (maybe not you) and saw the president and the SoS say from the podium that it was reaction to a video and people would be caught and punished.  I also saw two sets of parents of the victims interviewed on national TV and both said Obama and Clinton told them their sons died from a reaction to an anti-muslim video and spontaneous protest.  I find it disturbing that you would post on this topic and not know this simple fact.

     

     

                      Both the House report and the Senate report say terrorist attack by al quaida- ansar al sharia, they both say there were no demonstrations at that time, the attack was not a reaction to a video it was well planned, and that the president and the SoS knew this within one hour.

                     You may want to read them. They are posted in this thread. 



    Right, you don't read your own posts, but you read the Senate report.

    Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia are not one in the same.  Not even close.  But if you believe Al Qaeda was responsible, this is what they said about the attack:

    “The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

    And if you believe Ansar al Sharia is responsible, this is what their leader said:

    "The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect," Abu Khattala said. "If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force."

    Both blame the video.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Click the link for the 85 pg report.  I would urge you to read pgs 9,10, and 15, and the summation at the very end.

    FYI, I have never watched, read, or listened to Glenn Beck and could not pick him out of a lineup to save my life.

     

     

    Senate Report on Benghazi Terrorist Attack Confirms Failures in Obama Administration      

    A detailed report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the events in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens at the U.S. consulate in Libya, confirmed that President Barack Obama's administration failed to do anything to stop the terrorist attack.

    "The failures of Benghazi can be summed up this way: the Americans serving in Libya were vulnerable; the State Department knew they were vulnerable; and no one in the Administration really did anything about it," the 85-page report released on Wednesday stated in its conclusion.

    The report, which stated that "the attacks were preventable," added that the role of the White House in the events must be explored, as the Senate remains "without a full understanding" of the talks held between President Obama, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state on the night of the attacks.

    The Obama administration has been criticized for the apparent failure to increase security at the Libyan embassy in preparation of the 9/11 anniversary despite intelligence warnings. On the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists stormed the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA annex in the city with guns and bombs, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

    Although the Obama administration initially blamed the attack on a controversial Youtube video on the Islamic faith made by a U.S. citizen and said it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, the State Department later  confirmed that what went on was a pre-conceived attack from terrorist groups Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah.

    The Senate report criticized the Obama administration's failure to admit that these were terrorist attacks, and said that officials were "inconsistent and at times misleading in their public statements and failed for days to make clear to the American people that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack."

     

    Several congressional investigations and hearings have since been held on the U.S. government's knowledge and lack of action ahead of the attacks.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a January 2013 hearing that she takes responsibility for the situation, but denied any knowledge that Stevens himself had expressed "deep and grave concerns about security in Benghazi" two months before his death.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny," Clinton said at the time.

    The Obama administration also said that it discussed concerns and appropriate actions with top security officials the night before the Benghazi attack, releasing a press release titled "Readout of the President's Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th."

    Fox News reported on Tuesday, however, that it obtained "Top Secret" documents revealing that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress last year and revealed that the meeting on the eve of the attacks was simply a "conference call" and that Libya was never even discussed.

    "The four Americans who perished in Benghazi deserved better from their country. Their families, who have been waiting over a year for promised justice and answers, are entitled to know the truth about what happened and why," the Senate report noted in its conclusion.

    U.S. Senator for Maine Susan Collins argued that "a broken system overseen by senior leadership contributed to the vulnerability of U.S. diplomats and other American personnel in one of the most dangerous cities in the world," describing that as "unacceptable" and criticizing the secretary of state for holding no one accountable for those failures.

    Collins added that the responsibility for the attacks lies on the shoulders of the attackers themselves, but noted that Obama and other senior administration officials have so far failed to bring the perpetrators to justice.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You should link to your sources.  To date, the only TV interview I'm aware of is from Tyrone Woods's father was on the Glenn Beck show.  What you saw on "national television" was in all probability a clip from that show.  Your latest post is an article from "The Christian Post", and makes reference to Fox News Reports.  The same Fox News who brought you every false narrative to date about Benghazi ... http://www.christianpost.com/news/senate-report-on-benghazi-terrorist-attack-confirms-failures-in-obama-administration-112759/

    That aside, page 15 of the Senate report pivots to the lack of security in Benghazi, which I think raises valid questions.  I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that State Department let him down, but it's certainly a possibility.  Either way, it's not really relevant to your assertion that the administration obviously covered up a terrorist attack for political expediency.

    By "summary at the very end", I'll assume you're talking about Susan Collins's intepretation.  I'm not even going to bother to read it, because she has too much skin the game.  She, McCain and Lindsay Graham have been banging the Benghazi Drum since day one - they're all in.  They're not going to throw up their hands now and say sorry.

    Pages 9-10 of the Senate report detail increased threats of terrorism and extremist groups in the region, and the desire of these groups to target American interests.  

    I can see how you can point to those pages as support for the idea that we should have seen this as more a terrorist act than an act of religious extremist rage, but there is very little reference to Ansar al Sharia, which had never taken any action that did not center around religion and it's perversion of Islam.

    OK, I've read the pages you directed me to.  Now you read pages 34 - 35, and tell me on what date did the CIA determine that there was no protest preceding the attack?  And once you have your answer, produce any quote at any time from anybody in the administration that contradicts the beliefs of the Intelligence Community?  I don't want to hear about emails or some weird game of telephone you've concocted in your mind where General Ham says something to Leon Panetta, and Panetta then bursts into the Oval Office to tell Obama, who then rushes to the nearest camera.  I want you to stop... think... and find a quote that, given the nature of Ansar Al Sharia, and the opinion of the Intelligence Community at the time, implicates the administration of mis-leading anybody in any way.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


              Once again, I have never watched Beck in my life.  CNN played the mother of one of the victims interview for a week.  You can find the father of the Navy Seal telling his story of the Obama and Clinton lies everywhere.

              Stop asking me to answer your absurd questions.  You have no right.  First you stated that there was no coverup, there is. It`s proven. Second, you say not al quaida, it`s proven, there is. Then you say, what difference does it make.  You are all over the place and you continue to be wrong.

            There were 5-6 reports of al quaida ansar al sharia and it is confirmed this was a terrorist attack by al quaida. Both the Senate report and the House report conclude that there was no protest.  Do not question sources unless you want your nonsense questioned.

            As I said, I voted for Obama twice.  I hope I never get to the point where I will make a fool of myself defending blatant lies instead of accepting the proven truth, regardless of political leanings.

            Forget the CIA. Forget the New York Times.  Panetta, Ham, the Senate, the House, they are all in agreement.  Terrorist attack, Obama knew, and he lied.

           An implication that the administration misled?  Please say tou are kidding.  Rice on the talk shows?  14 days before anything resembling a terrorist attack claimed?  How dishonest can you be? 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    @enuffisafluff can you please do me a solid ..... can you post your comments in Cliffsnotes ... your comments are way too long

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate Benghazi Report: No Cover-Up, No Conspiracy

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    @enuffisenuff you are the one dishonoring those 4 brave Americans

     

     




     

     

    Yes, the president and the secretary of state telling their parents at their funeral that they died because of a spontaneous protest from a barely seen video was a much better way to honor those 4 brave men.

    What was I thinking?

     

     




    I forgot ... you attended the funerals for each of those 4 brave men didn't you .... btw didn't that bipartisan senate report state that the intel community came up with the notion that the video was the cause of the attack ..... a CIC depending on faulty intel ..... now where did I hear that before

     

     

     

     

     



                      No, I watched them on TV like everyone else in America, (maybe not you) and saw the president and the SoS say from the podium that it was reaction to a video and people would be caught and punished.  I also saw two sets of parents of the victims interviewed on national TV and both said Obama and Clinton told them their sons died from a reaction to an anti-muslim video and spontaneous protest.  I find it disturbing that you would post on this topic and not know this simple fact.

     

     

                      Both the House report and the Senate report say terrorist attack by al quaida- ansar al sharia, they both say there were no demonstrations at that time, the attack was not a reaction to a video it was well planned, and that the president and the SoS knew this within one hour.

                     You may want to read them. They are posted in this thread. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Right, you don't read your own posts, but you read the Senate report.

     

    Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia are not one in the same.  Not even close.  But if you believe Al Qaeda was responsible, this is what they said about the attack:

    “The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

    And if you believe Ansar al Sharia is responsible, this is what their leader said:

    "The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect," Abu Khattala said. "If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force."

    Both blame the video.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Click the link for the 85 pg report.  I would urge you to read pgs 9,10, and 15, and the summation at the very end.

    FYI, I have never watched, read, or listened to Glenn Beck and could not pick him out of a lineup to save my life.

     

     

    Senate Report on Benghazi Terrorist Attack Confirms Failures in Obama Administration      

    A detailed report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the events in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens at the U.S. consulate in Libya, confirmed that President Barack Obama's administration failed to do anything to stop the terrorist attack.

    "The failures of Benghazi can be summed up this way: the Americans serving in Libya were vulnerable; the State Department knew they were vulnerable; and no one in the Administration really did anything about it," the 85-page report released on Wednesday stated in its conclusion.

    The report, which stated that "the attacks were preventable," added that the role of the White House in the events must be explored, as the Senate remains "without a full understanding" of the talks held between President Obama, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state on the night of the attacks.

    The Obama administration has been criticized for the apparent failure to increase security at the Libyan embassy in preparation of the 9/11 anniversary despite intelligence warnings. On the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists stormed the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA annex in the city with guns and bombs, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

    Although the Obama administration initially blamed the attack on a controversial Youtube video on the Islamic faith made by a U.S. citizen and said it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, the State Department later  confirmed that what went on was a pre-conceived attack from terrorist groups Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah.

    The Senate report criticized the Obama administration's failure to admit that these were terrorist attacks, and said that officials were "inconsistent and at times misleading in their public statements and failed for days to make clear to the American people that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack."

     

    Several congressional investigations and hearings have since been held on the U.S. government's knowledge and lack of action ahead of the attacks.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a January 2013 hearing that she takes responsibility for the situation, but denied any knowledge that Stevens himself had expressed "deep and grave concerns about security in Benghazi" two months before his death.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny," Clinton said at the time.

    The Obama administration also said that it discussed concerns and appropriate actions with top security officials the night before the Benghazi attack, releasing a press release titled "Readout of the President's Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th."

    Fox News reported on Tuesday, however, that it obtained "Top Secret" documents revealing that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress last year and revealed that the meeting on the eve of the attacks was simply a "conference call" and that Libya was never even discussed.

    "The four Americans who perished in Benghazi deserved better from their country. Their families, who have been waiting over a year for promised justice and answers, are entitled to know the truth about what happened and why," the Senate report noted in its conclusion.

    U.S. Senator for Maine Susan Collins argued that "a broken system overseen by senior leadership contributed to the vulnerability of U.S. diplomats and other American personnel in one of the most dangerous cities in the world," describing that as "unacceptable" and criticizing the secretary of state for holding no one accountable for those failures.

    Collins added that the responsibility for the attacks lies on the shoulders of the attackers themselves, but noted that Obama and other senior administration officials have so far failed to bring the perpetrators to justice.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You should link to your sources.  To date, the only TV interview I'm aware of is from Tyrone Woods's father was on the Glenn Beck show.  What you saw on "national television" was in all probability a clip from that show.  Your latest post is an article from "The Christian Post", and makes reference to Fox News Reports.  The same Fox News who brought you every false narrative to date about Benghazi ... http://www.christianpost.com/news/senate-report-on-benghazi-terrorist-attack-confirms-failures-in-obama-administration-112759/

    That aside, page 15 of the Senate report pivots to the lack of security in Benghazi, which I think raises valid questions.  I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that State Department let him down, but it's certainly a possibility.  Either way, it's not really relevant to your assertion that the administration obviously covered up a terrorist attack for political expediency.

    By "summary at the very end", I'll assume you're talking about Susan Collins's intepretation.  I'm not even going to bother to read it, because she has too much skin the game.  She, McCain and Lindsay Graham have been banging the Benghazi Drum since day one - they're all in.  They're not going to throw up their hands now and say sorry.

    Pages 9-10 of the Senate report detail increased threats of terrorism and extremist groups in the region, and the desire of these groups to target American interests.  

    I can see how you can point to those pages as support for the idea that we should have seen this as more a terrorist act than an act of religious extremist rage, but there is very little reference to Ansar al Sharia, which had never taken any action that did not center around religion and it's perversion of Islam.

    OK, I've read the pages you directed me to.  Now you read pages 34 - 35, and tell me on what date did the CIA determine that there was no protest preceding the attack?  And once you have your answer, produce any quote at any time from anybody in the administration that contradicts the beliefs of the Intelligence Community?  I don't want to hear about emails or some weird game of telephone you've concocted in your mind where General Ham says something to Leon Panetta, and Panetta then bursts into the Oval Office to tell Obama, who then rushes to the nearest camera.  I want you to stop... think... and find a quote that, given the nature of Ansar Al Sharia, and the opinion of the Intelligence Community at the time, implicates the administration of mis-leading anybody in any way.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


              Once again, I have never watched Beck in my life.  CNN played the mother of one of the victims interview for a week.  You can find the father of the Navy Seal telling his story of the Obama and Clinton lies everywhere.

              Stop asking me to answer your absurd questions.  You have no right.  First you stated that there was no coverup, there is. It`s proven. Second, you say not al quaida, it`s proven, there is. Then you say, what difference does it make.  You are all over the place and you continue to be wrong.

            There were 5-6 reports of al quaida ansar al sharia and it is confirmed this was a terrorist attack by al quaida. Both the Senate report and the House report conclude that there was no protest.  Do not question sources unless you want your nonsense questioned.

            As I said, I voted for Obama twice.  I hope I never get to the point where I will make a fool of myself defending blatant lies instead of accepting the proven truth, regardless of political leanings.

            Forget the CIA. Forget the New York Times.  Panetta, Ham, the Senate, the House, they are all in agreement.  Terrorist attack, Obama knew, and he lied.

           An implication that the administration misled?  Please say tou are kidding.  Rice on the talk shows?  14 days before anything resembling a terrorist attack claimed?  How dishonest can you be? 

    [/QUOTE]

    OK.  For whatever reason, you've come to absurd conclusions that you are afraid to challenge.  

    You don't understand that Ansar al Sharia and Al Qaeda are separate entities with only guns, religion, and crazy in common

    You don't think it's possible that heavily armed Islamist extremists were at all irked that Mohammed was portrayed as a child-molester

    You won't answer my questions

    You won't quote your sources

    You won't read the pages of the Senate report that are contrary to your conclusions

    You won't even produce an actual quote from Obama or Clinton that you object to.

    I'm not really sure why you're here.  It's not to debate. 

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share