I find this intransigence and constant repetition of accusations that have already been directly answered by numerous official investigations to be either a deliberate partisan attempt at maintaining a false sense of outrage, or a rather substantive and widespread aversion to reading. I guess its simply too much to ask that you read the numerous and readily available official reports that have not only made significant findings but have also made any number of recommendations many of which are already in the process of being adopted. I can only think of four possible reasons for such intransigence and refusal to acquire knowledge and none of them are at all flattering.
I have repeatedly responded to "where are these answers" . Even providing links AND page numbers. I cannot help it if "read the reports from the official investigations" is too complex a sentence for some to comprehend.
We need to find out exactly what this administration was doing in Benghazi? That's going to be key to finding out exactly what happened. Here's some questions: 1) Where did the terrorists get their rocket-propelled weapons? 2) Where did they get the rest of the weaponry they used? 3) Why did the local Security leave their posts just before the attack began? 4) Did we know that Ansar al Sharia was inside Benghazi? 5) Was the attack directed by the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama and Hillary had tried to install in Egypt? Was their a connection there? 6) Where was Obama the night of the attack? How many calls did he make.....if any....to make sure Stevens and the rest got some help immediately? 7) Where was Hillary the night of the attack? Whom did she talk to and did they discuss a story to use as a poltical cover-up? Why don't they seem to know who did it....when Ansar al Sharia claimed they did it just after the attack? 9) Why did they have CIA personnel sign confidentiality statements immediately after? Are they aware the CIA personnel there in Benghazi were angry that they were being asked to sign such statements that threatened their retirement and livelihood if they talked? I think this time.....the panel will be getting in to the meat of the matter.
Ah, THIS time it will be different? LOL Question, when this one turns out to be a bust and another waste of money like all the others, will the NEXT one be different?
What is the damning evidence? Here's a huge clue, if there was anything to these emails, it would have been in the headline, and again in the first paragraph. Instead the story is all about the classified status, and no mention of the content, which means they contain nothing that changes anything. This is just rattling the cage of the sheep to keep them distracted from the phenomenal success of ObamaCare....
Just keep an open mind Democrats. The truth will ALL come out eventually. Not to worry. There is a LOT more to this Benghazi story and I think when it's all over.....we'll all understand exactly why they sought to silence everyone: Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh who broke the stories of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandals, which rightfully disgraced the Nixon and Bush administrations war-fighting tactics reported last week: In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The reports criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. Thats the part youve heard about: failure to protect the personnel at the embassy. But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open: A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafis arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didnt always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.) The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a finding, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive. The annex didnt tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. The consulates only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms, the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. It had no real political role. Hersh isnt the first to report on this major scandal. Weve extensively documented that the bigger story behind the murder of ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi embassy in Libya is that the embassy was the center of U.S. efforts to arm jihadis in Syria who are trying to topple the Syrian government. Weve also noted that this is not a partisan issue both parties greenlighted regime change in Syria years ago, and both parties have tried to cover up what was really going on in Benghazi. Last August, CNN touched on the weapons smuggling aspect of Benghazi. The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi wasmainly being used for a secret CIA operation. They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi provided diplomatic cover for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate. And former CIA officer Philip Giraldiconfirms: Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIAs operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafis arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassadors party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack. Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals. Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition: More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action? Boykin said Stevens was given a directive to support the Syrian rebels and the State Departments Special Mission Compound in Benghazi would be the hub of that activity. Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists: Theres growing evidence that U.S. agentsparticularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevenswere at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels. In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groupa group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens life. In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria. Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria has docked in Turkey. The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. *** Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot downSyrian helicopters and fighter jets. The ships captain was a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which was presumably established by the new government. That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one personBelhadjbetween himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from? Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them Libyans when he explained that the FSA doesnt want these extremist people here. And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkeya deal brokered by Stevens primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolutionthen the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it. Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles and that its security features were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died. And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya. In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government. Other sources also discuss that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria. Many have speculated that if normal security measures werent taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation. That is what I think really happened at Benghazi. Was CIA Chief David Petraeus Firing Due to Benghazi? CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasnt an affair but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi which was the real reason for Petraeus sudden resignation." AND why did Petraeus suddenly have to resign and why did he go silent? I think it's because this administration had this story sitting there on Petraeus to use whenever they felt they needed to. I don't think they ever really trusted him....as he was Bush's guy anyway. So, when he was called to testify and I think surely would have answered the questions truthfully.......this affair story broke and he was "conveniently" forced to resign. How coincidental for Obama and Hillary....right???? IOW's, I'm thinking that this whole operation was just what the article says.....to run heavy weapons into Syria....arming terrorists actually. And the entire thing backfired on them. And that is why they do NOT want it known. And that is why they went in there twice and made sure those CIA personnel were made to sign the confidentiality statements under threat of losing their jobs and their pensions. We WILL find out what happened....and what this was all about.....and why they purposefully lied. The truth comes out on this.....and it's disaster time for them. It's why the Dems would rather this all go away. http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-ef...-the-benghazi-undercover-cia-facility/5377887
nice dodge. That's a clever escape....."I provided links". Yes you did ad they don't contain the answers. Is there a reason you cant just type one answer?
Pretending that it was a protest over a video instead of a terrorist attack, does nothing to help hide the CIA operation. That I believe was purely for political reasons leading up to the election. Didnt fit with the "AlQaeda is on the run" story.
Please post a link to the actual email contents, this is all I am finding. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/05/05/emails-released-to-congress-judicial-watch/ I see no contents what so ever. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14 So what does this prove exactly? Edit to add: Looks like they are attachments? Anyways I just see talking points and requests to declassify some stuff. So Again what does this prove exactly? What page of these emails is the smoking gun?
Proves Obama, Rice and Clinton all lied. It was the whitehouse who insisted upon portraying Benghazi as a reaction to a video.
not playing this game. Get back to me when you have read the official investigations and then ask your "unanswered" questions.
It does not in any way. Sadly accurage reading comprehension seems to be merely a political convenience for the right.
Already read them. still no answers to my repeated questions. Lets count how long it takes you to back up your talk with the answers you say exist.
Bull you read them. If you did then you'd know these answers: There were conflicting reports on what went down from the start. Susan Rice did not lie. The talking points originated from the CIA. There was a variety of actions taken in response. There was no armed drone in the vicinity. Hilary did not deny security requests. Obama was at the white house and did give direction. Steven's body was not dragged thru the streets. There were multiple contemporaneous demonstrations and attacks specifically due to the video. There was no cover up by the administration as to their actions. The role of the CIA apparently has been described in classified briefings not publicized in the name of national security. All of those answers are clearly stated in the various investigations that you haven't read, or you wouldn't be playing this game.
none of these are answers they are responses. Asking who obama gave orders to and you saying "people who were never in my kitchen" is not an answer. Where was obama all night? The white house is not an answer its evading direct questioning. Only people who did something wrong give vague responses....like "at this point what does it matter?" Now answer the questions or go away and stop wasting my time. I want detailed answers not your rachel maddow marching orders.
Nonsense. Thats another of the many lies put out by the administration. CIA said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. State Department said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. The Whitehouse said it was a protest over a video.
In the question of lack of support for our people in Benghazi (my favorite issue in this regard) President Obama told Denver tv reporter Kyle Clark on October, 26 "the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe." http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_chose_to_let_them_die_in_benghazi.html So on order by the president himself, all our military and intelligence assets' number one job was to make sure our people were safe. Yet the following day a CIA spokesman said this, "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." That's a direct contradiction. General Carter F. Ham, AFRICOM commander also testified he was not ordered to give any assistance to the people in Benghazi And then current Secretary of the Defense, Leon Panetta, said this about Benghazi: "We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that." He claims our forces were there and ready, and yet....they were never called on and this is despite president Obama's own claim that he committed all our assets to rescuing and protecting our people in Benghazi. So who is lying? Obama or Panetta, the CIA and trusted AFRICOM leader General Ham? Because Obama said one thing, and the others are saying another. So which answer should I take here? And who has truly explained why our people were left to die? MOD EDIT >>>PERSONAL REMARKS REMOVED<<<<
What is incongruent in the president stating that he gave a directive to send help...and help not being sent. If the President gave the directive to send help and it was decided...not enough facts were know [in real time]to send a detail that wouldn't be at risk of being slaughted themselves. The situation was fluid and no one had a clear picture [in real time]as to what was happening, how many insurgents were involved, on so on to send troops into harms way. It would have been a even greater tradegy to send troops into an unknown situtation and be slaughtered as soon as they hit the ground.
What do you think is incongruent about it? When is an absolute priority NOT an absolute priority? We had drones circling our Benghazi compound sending real time video feeds back to the White House. What do you suppose was "unknown" about the attack? That's extremely weak. And as far as being "slaughtered themselves" did that stop the Bin Laden raid? Since when has the possibility of danger been reason enough to leave our people to die mercilessly? This is even weaker than your earlier point...which is saying something. Hello, have you met the drone I discussed before. We had more than enough force to insure that would not happened. Obama said he ordered all assets necessary to rescue our people... he didn't order that we think about it and then chicken out (though that's just what wound up happening). MOD EDIT >>>PERSONAL REMARKS REMOVED<<<<
Actually, those "responses" are CONCLUSIONS and STATEMENTS OF FACT that appear in the various reports on the subject. Obama was in the white house all night. Why is that some kind of question in the first place? Doyou honestly think that he wouldn't be interested in the attack? That some how he would be negligent? Your "evidence" is a logical fallacy. What utter nonsense "only people who did something would be vague". ALL OF YOUR DETAILED ANSWERS CAN BE FOUND IN THE BI PARTISAN SENATE INTELL REPORT. Why you refuse to read it certainly isn't a puzzle.
wrong again. Nothing like propagating an accusation of no substance. I supppose that the findings of the various investigations that clearly concluded that indeed there were conflicting reports from the intell community were all nothing more than a subversive democratic plot. MOD EDIT >>>PERSONAL REMARKS REMOVED<<<< apparently it doesn't matter that there were conflicting reports and one type had the correct initial conclusion. I guess that means that using the infallible hindsight-o-scope, everyone should have known the truth immediately if not sooner (in the case of Mitt). MOD EDIT >>>PERSONAL REMARKS REMOVED<<<<
MOD EDIT >>>PERSONAL REMARKS/RESPONSE REMOVED<<<< WHAT!!!! President obama described what his reaction was. He gave the necessary direction to his subordinates. CIA did not have anyone tell them not to help the people involved in the attack. And you call that a contradiction? wow. Read the house armed service committee report that focused on the military perspective of the incident. Yes, there was a rapid response as detailed in both the senate and the house reports. Nobody is lying from what I can see. there is absolutely no contradiction. For this being your favourite "issue" that you have no knowledge of the timeline or the content of the various official investigative reports speaks volumes. they were not left to die period. Excellent luntzism but completely inaccurate. The mere fact you use the word "honestly" when you are doing nothing more that propagating lies, misrepresentations and unsubstnatiated accusations for purely partisan political purposes and that you refuse to actually accept the result of numerous bi-partisan investigations displays a lot of chutzpah and hypocrisy.
