Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    Patreaus QUIT due to the changes in these talking points by the State department and the White House.  12 changes!!!

     




     

    And here I thought, along with the entire country, that Patreaus quit because of his extra-marital affair and the possible compromise of nat'l security secrets to his reporter/mistress.

     

     




     

    You thought wrong.  He wouldn`t be part of the State Dept`s 12 changes.  You`ll hear it all this week.  

     




    Oh, so Petraeus was lying. Why would you now believe him?

     

    WASHINGTON -- CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday, citing an extramarital affair and "extremely poor judgment."

    As first reported by NBC News, Petraeus disclosed the affair in a letter released to the CIA work force on Friday afternoon, writing: "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours."

    Petraeus told President Barack Obama of his affair and offered his resignation during a meeting Thursday, a senior official told NBC News.



    Funny. Petraeus knows about the. Talking points edits, disagrees. And is outed days after the election.

    yep. most transparent administration ever.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    Nice echo chamber drivel ya dug up there.

    Sooo, dang convincing.

    Yep, because the best way to influence someone's testimony to be favorable to your point of view is to fire them and hope when they get called back to testify they remember how well you treated them.

    Makes perfect sense.

    One big conspiracy..........

     

    You nimrods are hilarious.

     




     

    Sorry airborne.  What`s funny is desperate Obama apologists (you) grasping and grabbing at a hopeless "conspiracy" rant when FACTS are staring you in the face.  Wait until more whistleblowers come this week and the good General`s (real) data is revealed.

    BWAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!  Talk about hilarious.



    Aren't you forgetting that the whistle-blower on the Petraeus affair was an FBI agent who met with Republican leadership - Eric Cantor; and not Obama - when the affair was revealed?  Also, that Petraeus testified after resigning that he believed there were no political motivations involved in the editing of the talking points?  

    Is this conspiracy so devious that even logic wants no part in it?

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    I love conspiracy theories, but it has to make sense.  How about Eric Cantor was trying to black-mail Petraeus into implicating the administration with his testimony, thus setting up an impeachment hearing in case Romney lost the election.  Because perjury would not be necessary if Romney had won, Petraeus elected to wait for the results of the election before "coming clean" rather than providing false testimony.

    Proof?  I have none.  But neither do you, and at least mine fits.

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     



    Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Lieberman, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, all spoke of WMD for 20 years.  The Dems that voted for Resolution 114 and the overwhelming vote form Congress (both parties) was undeniable.  

     

    None of your rantings have anything to do with the simple fact that al qeada terrorists attacked our embassy on Sept 11th, 2012, a day that should be of the highest alert, killed our ambassador, and the Obama idiots changed the talking points (12 times), tried to blame the calculated attack on a youtube video, and lied to America.  Obama and Hillary lied to the mother of one of the dead soldiers at the freaking memorial, right to her face!  These lies and this crime was commited because an al qeada attack during the campaign wouldn`t work based on the fact that Obama was running around telling us "osama is dead and al qeada is on the run".

    Wake up and be honest.

     



    Never said this wasn't a horrendous policy failure, hence my impeachment credo, to repeat yet again; but the Republican reaction is horrendous as well, especially in light of their non-reactions to umpteen similar and worse policy failures by previous admins.

    When shall you wake up to that? As far as rantings are concerned, I didn't start this rant based excuse for a thread.

     



    I don`t think impeachment is even on the table. I would completely disregard any talk of impeachment and anyone that suggests it is smoking something.  The MSM has a love affair with Obama and impeachment is out of the question based ob the makeup of the House and Senate. 

     

    What "Republican reaction"?  You have yet to explain this.  This was/is a gross display of incompetence followed by outright lies and quite possibly criminal acts.  Please explain what the "response" should be?  

    Also, still waiting for any factual data you have about deliberate coverups surrounding some of the previous administration blunders you mention.

     

     



    I agree there needs to be more fact finding hearings on Benghazi; but for the most part this appears to be on the GOP agenda, not bipartisan. I actually consider Fast & Furious to be a failure of similar magnitude. And I felt Obama should have kept his mouth shut when that Harvard Prof had that incident with the cops. He appears to be lukewarm at best regarding Israel as well; however, while I'm Jewish, that country IMO is clearly no angel; although maybe if they were they would have ceased existing long ago.

    However, where was the outrage over the previous admin's failures? Some were whoppers. Can you imagine the GOP response if Obama did them?

     

    The only reason I mentioned impeachment was a predictive hunch based on Lindsay Graham's tone & reference to Watergate; until if and then you are right about it's prospects.

    I can't give you info on the Valerie Plame incident as it pertains to the compromises discussed above; it was based on word of mouth from European acquaintances, so if you want to conclude hearsay, I couldn't blame you. For other info, check out the documentary "Iraq for Sale" (as mentioned before). Admittedly, as in any media creation, it's subjective. Otherwise:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19704513/ns/politics/t/bush-orders-miers-defy-house-subpoena/#.UY_ip7UslFs

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

     

     

     



    I will check out Iraq for Sale.  I hear you on the outrage of previous failures.  There were many.  I`ve said plenty of times.........Bush was an awful president.

     

    But, were there coverups? Lies?  Deliberate, made up, changed-talkingpoints?

     



    To some degree, yes there were covverups, lies, etc. But this is like saying if somebody commits a murder, his defense lawyer says "But where's the bank robbery?"

     

     



    Give me a lie?  A coverup?  

     

     



    Go check the links I provided.

     

     




     

    I read them thoroughly.  Old news.  No coverups, no lies.  No made up stories.  Incompetence, yes.  Lies,no.

    Again, this is not the act.  We know Americans died and there`s nothing worse.  Instead of explaining how and why, a complete BS story was made up to save an election.

    Listen to Feinstein on Meet the Press and Kucinich on Fox from yesterday.  It`s a "no brainer".

     

     



    I did, and I agreed with you more hearings are needed, at least for now.

     

    No lies or coverrups regarding the Justice Dep't scandal, offical reason to go to War in Iraq, press censorship of American coffins, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo & Valerie Plame? OK then.

     

     




     

    "official reason to go to Iraq"?  What are you talking about?  Have you read Resolution 114? Overwhelmingly supported by both the House and the Senate.  Debated for months and then voted on. We went to Iraq because 535 members of Congress sent a veto-proof bill to the president`s desk demanding we go.   

    Do you know what you`re saying or are you just throwing up thoughtless rants?

     

     



    We've discussed this before. Yet again, go look back at the entire thread. Mostly due to you, we're going back and forth on this regarding cause & effect, your rants vs mine, proof, info, links and so on. We're not going to agree, & you can think what you want. I shall as well.

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    I love conspiracy theories, but it has to make sense.  How about Eric Cantor was trying to black-mail Petraeus into implicating the administration with his testimony, thus setting up an impeachment hearing in case Romney lost the election.  Because perjury would not be necessary if Romney had won, Petraeus elected to wait for the results of the election before "coming clean" rather than providing false testimony.

    Proof?  I have none.  But neither do you, and at least mine fits.

     

     




     

    Yahhhh!  It`s a big conspiracy, LOL!  The proof is coming, everyday, you`re not watching or listening.  You`re in denial as a blind Obama apologist.




    Sure bigdog - just like the economy is contracting and Romney's going to win Ohio because the polls have a liberal slant.  At what point do you stop believing the p1ss on your leg is rain-water?

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Is this the real reason for the Benghazi hearings ?

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    That's right Sister, the Republicans set the whole thing up and then forced Hillary to lie about it. It's really just a vast Republican conspiracy.

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    I love conspiracy theories, but it has to make sense.  How about Eric Cantor was trying to black-mail Petraeus into implicating the administration with his testimony, thus setting up an impeachment hearing in case Romney lost the election.  Because perjury would not be necessary if Romney had won, Petraeus elected to wait for the results of the election before "coming clean" rather than providing false testimony.

    Proof?  I have none.  But neither do you, and at least mine fits.

     

     




     

    Yahhhh!  It`s a big conspiracy, LOL!  The proof is coming, everyday, you`re not watching or listening.  You`re in denial as a blind Obama apologist.

     




     

    Sure bigdog - just like the economy is contracting and Romney's going to win Ohio because the polls have a liberal slant.  At what point do you stop believing the p1ss on your leg is rain-water?

     

     




     

    At the point where it`s PROVEN that talking points were changed 12 times, PROVEN that it was a calculated, coordinated, al Qeada attack, and PROVEN that Obama, Hillary, and Rice all lied.

    That was last week with more coming this week.  Keep dreaming.



    Here are the original, unedited talking points.  Show me where Obama, Clinton or Rice lied.  Show me where it says it was a calculated, coordinated Al Qaeda attack...

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society.  That being said, we do know that Islamic extremests with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.

    Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.  The group as since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.  Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

    The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

    Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy.  We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

    We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     



    Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Lieberman, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, all spoke of WMD for 20 years.  The Dems that voted for Resolution 114 and the overwhelming vote form Congress (both parties) was undeniable.  

     

    None of your rantings have anything to do with the simple fact that al qeada terrorists attacked our embassy on Sept 11th, 2012, a day that should be of the highest alert, killed our ambassador, and the Obama idiots changed the talking points (12 times), tried to blame the calculated attack on a youtube video, and lied to America.  Obama and Hillary lied to the mother of one of the dead soldiers at the freaking memorial, right to her face!  These lies and this crime was commited because an al qeada attack during the campaign wouldn`t work based on the fact that Obama was running around telling us "osama is dead and al qeada is on the run".

    Wake up and be honest.

     



    Never said this wasn't a horrendous policy failure, hence my impeachment credo, to repeat yet again; but the Republican reaction is horrendous as well, especially in light of their non-reactions to umpteen similar and worse policy failures by previous admins.

    When shall you wake up to that? As far as rantings are concerned, I didn't start this rant based excuse for a thread.

     



    I don`t think impeachment is even on the table. I would completely disregard any talk of impeachment and anyone that suggests it is smoking something.  The MSM has a love affair with Obama and impeachment is out of the question based ob the makeup of the House and Senate. 

     

    What "Republican reaction"?  You have yet to explain this.  This was/is a gross display of incompetence followed by outright lies and quite possibly criminal acts.  Please explain what the "response" should be?  

    Also, still waiting for any factual data you have about deliberate coverups surrounding some of the previous administration blunders you mention.

     

     



    I agree there needs to be more fact finding hearings on Benghazi; but for the most part this appears to be on the GOP agenda, not bipartisan. I actually consider Fast & Furious to be a failure of similar magnitude. And I felt Obama should have kept his mouth shut when that Harvard Prof had that incident with the cops. He appears to be lukewarm at best regarding Israel as well; however, while I'm Jewish, that country IMO is clearly no angel; although maybe if they were they would have ceased existing long ago.

    However, where was the outrage over the previous admin's failures? Some were whoppers. Can you imagine the GOP response if Obama did them?

     

    The only reason I mentioned impeachment was a predictive hunch based on Lindsay Graham's tone & reference to Watergate; until if and then you are right about it's prospects.

    I can't give you info on the Valerie Plame incident as it pertains to the compromises discussed above; it was based on word of mouth from European acquaintances, so if you want to conclude hearsay, I couldn't blame you. For other info, check out the documentary "Iraq for Sale" (as mentioned before). Admittedly, as in any media creation, it's subjective. Otherwise:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19704513/ns/politics/t/bush-orders-miers-defy-house-subpoena/#.UY_ip7UslFs

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

     

     

     



    I will check out Iraq for Sale.  I hear you on the outrage of previous failures.  There were many.  I`ve said plenty of times.........Bush was an awful president.

     

    But, were there coverups? Lies?  Deliberate, made up, changed-talkingpoints?

     



    To some degree, yes there were covverups, lies, etc. But this is like saying if somebody commits a murder, his defense lawyer says "But where's the bank robbery?"

     

     



    Give me a lie?  A coverup?  

     

     



    Go check the links I provided.

     

     




     

    I read them thoroughly.  Old news.  No coverups, no lies.  No made up stories.  Incompetence, yes.  Lies,no.

    Again, this is not the act.  We know Americans died and there`s nothing worse.  Instead of explaining how and why, a complete BS story was made up to save an election.

    Listen to Feinstein on Meet the Press and Kucinich on Fox from yesterday.  It`s a "no brainer".

     

     



    I did, and I agreed with you more hearings are needed, at least for now.

     

    No lies or coverrups regarding the Justice Dep't scandal, offical reason to go to War in Iraq, press censorship of American coffins, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo & Valerie Plame? OK then.

     

     




     

    "official reason to go to Iraq"?  What are you talking about?  Have you read Resolution 114? Overwhelmingly supported by both the House and the Senate.  Debated for months and then voted on. We went to Iraq because 535 members of Congress sent a veto-proof bill to the president`s desk demanding we go.   

    Do you know what you`re saying or are you just throwing up thoughtless rants?

     

     



    We've discussed this before. Yet again, go look back at the entire thread. Mostly due to you, we're going back and forth on this regarding cause & effect, your rants vs mine, proof, info, links and so on. We're not going to agree, & you can think what you want. I shall as well.

     

     




     

    Think what you want...........but you`re (ridiculously) wrong!  Read and learn before you post nonsense.

    Start with Resolution 114, a bipartisan bill written by 1-Rep and 1-Dem.  It was debated for months on the floor of the House and the Senate.  It was OVERWHELMINGLY supported (300-134 House, 77-23 Senate) and then sent to the president for signature.  With these majorities it was veto-proof.  CONGRESS DECIDED TO GO TO IRAQ, not your fallacy of a "big Bush-lie-conspiracy".

    Just try educating yourself for a change.

     



    Yes, I am aware, and was disappointed many Dems went for the ride, including Hillary (Who later regretted it, and claimed she was duped regarding WMDs'; sound familiar? Admittedly, that sounds like an excuse). Perhaps you should try to educate yourself (based on your  posting history. more likely denial on your part) regarding Cheney's cause and effect role as well, and Bush's opinion on this matter after the fact. Round and round we go.  

     

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    That's right Sister, the Republicans set the whole thing up and then forced Hillary to lie about it. It's really just a vast Republican conspiracy.

     




    Hey it's not my fault that the voters trust Hillary more that the GOP on the issue Of Benghazi

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    Nice echo chamber drivel ya dug up there.

    Sooo, dang convincing.

    Yep, because the best way to influence someone's testimony to be favorable to your point of view is to fire them and hope when they get called back to testify they remember how well you treated them.

    Makes perfect sense.

    One big conspiracy..........

     

    You nimrods are hilarious.

     




     

    Sorry airborne.  What`s funny is desperate Obama apologists (you) grasping and grabbing at a hopeless "conspiracy" rant when FACTS are staring you in the face.  Wait until more whistleblowers come this week and the good General`s (real) data is revealed.

    BWAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!  Talk about hilarious.



    Wow, that's rich, Bigdog. You first posted on 4/23/13. Seems to me, possibly like ACC, you've needed to create a new account/avatar. What was it before? Jmel? Tacobreath?

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    That's right Sister, the Republicans set the whole thing up and then forced Hillary to lie about it. It's really just a vast Republican conspiracy.

     

     




    Hey it's not my fault that the voters trust Hillary more that the GOP on the issue Of Benghazi

     



    Hillary voters?  You mean Obam voters, don't you?

    I find it hard to beleive Obama or Hillary voters even know what a Benghazi is.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    That's right Sister, the Republicans set the whole thing up and then forced Hillary to lie about it. It's really just a vast Republican conspiracy.

     

     




    Hey it's not my fault that the voters trust Hillary more that the GOP on the issue Of Benghazi

     

     



    Hillary voters?  You mean Obam voters, don't you?

     

    I find it hard to beleive Obama or Hillary voters even know what a Benghazi is.




    skeeter you couldn't find Benghazi on a map

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    That's right Sister, the Republicans set the whole thing up and then forced Hillary to lie about it. It's really just a vast Republican conspiracy.

     

     




    Hey it's not my fault that the voters trust Hillary more that the GOP on the issue Of Benghazi

     

     



    Hillary voters?  You mean Obam voters, don't you?

     

    I find it hard to beleive Obama or Hillary voters even know what a Benghazi is.

     




    skeeter you couldn't find Benghazi on a map

     



    Who needs a map?

    It's right below Sommerville, right?

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Anybody?  bigdog passed.  Any other outraged conservatives want to show me the bigger than watergate coverup in light of the unabridged talking points?  I see spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo.  I see that it was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society - you guys read that as co-ordinated Al Qaeda attack?  Are you outraged that Susan Rice didn't go into details about Ansar Al-Sharia's facebook account?  Not even the CIA was brave enough to describe their twitter account.

    This is the heart of your faux outrage - your silence is deafening.

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society.  That being said, we do know that Islamic extremests with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.

    Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.  The group as since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.  Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

    The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

    Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy.  We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

    We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Anybody?  bigdog passed.  Any other outraged conservatives want to show me the bigger than watergate coverup in light of the unabridged talking points?  I see spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo.  I see that it was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society - you guys read that as co-ordinated Al Qaeda attack?  Are you outraged that Susan Rice didn't go into details about Ansar Al-Sharia's facebook account?  Not even the CIA was brave enough to describe their twitter account.

    This is the heart of your faux outrage - your silence is deafening.

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society.  That being said, we do know that Islamic extremests with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.

    Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.  The group as since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.  Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

    The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

    Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy.  We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

    We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.



    Who pushed the video as the reason for these attacks, and why did they persist in using the video excuse long after it was known for certain that it had nothing to do with it.

     

    Your willingness to ignore the obvious here is amazing.

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

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Anybody?  bigdog passed.  Any other outraged conservatives want to show me the bigger than watergate coverup in light of the unabridged talking points?  I see spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo.  I see that it was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society - you guys read that as co-ordinated Al Qaeda attack?  Are you outraged that Susan Rice didn't go into details about Ansar Al-Sharia's facebook account?  Not even the CIA was brave enough to describe their twitter account.

    This is the heart of your faux outrage - your silence is deafening.

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society.  That being said, we do know that Islamic extremests with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.

    Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.  The group as since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.  Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

    The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

    Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy.  We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

    We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

     



    Who pushed the video as the reason for these attacks, and why did they persist in using the video excuse long after it was known for certain that it had nothing to do with it.

     

     

    Your willingness to ignore the obvious here is amazing.



    Why don't you read that first sentence again.  What was at the root of the protests in Cairo?  The CIA acknowledged the compound was previously surveilled, and the violence against the British Ambassador, and acknowledged that members of the group had links to Al-Qaeda, but it still placed the blame on Cairo, and subsequently the video.  Everything you learned in the past eight months, the CIA knew on day one, and they still blamed the protests in Cairo.  Who's ignoring the obvious here?

    Can you point to anything said by Rice, Clinton or Obama that contradicts the original talking points?

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share