Republicans won't let Benghazi go . . .

That wasn't a lie. They had every reason to believe it was due to a video at the time.

If they proved it wasn't due to the video(later on).............then they were only wrong, not lying.

You just don't understand the difference between a lie and being wrong and then get mad once we point this out to you. You don't even try to understand the difference. You would rather be clueless. Why?

 

So let's test you. If you are willing to participate, but I bet you don't for fear of being exposed. So let's test you. I dare you!

Whats the difference between a "lie" and "being wrong"?

Any idea? Clueless? Or do you know the difference? I bet you don't and will not even try to answer for fear of being exposed as not knowing the difference!

 

All your bloviating and not a single shred of evidence that proves FOX did nothing more than report what they were told. Thats the truth about your lies ad naseum.

 

There weren't many actual firsthand people THERE. Like DuH !!!!!!!!!!
The few who were there { there was CIA operatives at the Mission during the
fateful night } and those who went to Hospital were sequestered.That's right.
This Administration pulled out all the stops and made sure any Witness,
especially those who got hospitalized were cordoned off.This White House
and State dept. went to extreme effort to make any and all witness at the
scene NOT AVAILABLE. That's right. It was done on purpose to keep the
public from hearing about any accounts of what happened that night.
That is something one would expect of a new York crime family.
Hide any witness.Which is what happened.Congressman Chaffetz had to make
a special trip to Libya in order to find ANY witness so as to get a read on what
happened.He was denied access.Imagine that.A Congressman charged with getting
to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi is given the complete runaround.
The same thing happened to military men who had operational duties that fateful
night.They were told specifically Not to talk to the media,especially Fox news.
Benghazi was a massive cover up.Some Military higher-ups were relocated and their
whereabouts were purposedly kept hidden.

 

Yes, they reported the facts as they were being told....and the evidence is found in the testimony of Gregory Hicks.

Apparently your wish has come true.

Sadly, I care whether my beliefs are true or not.[/QUOTE]No, sadly you don't. The truth is that Fox reported what informants told them and what is in testimony. As for your beliefs. you chose the CIA over the personal accounts of the person in charge at the time who was on-site at the time? So much for your belief system.

- - - Updated - - -

It appears that you would fail your own test.

 

And that's it.That's yer take. Um ... Let me see.
4 legs good ... 2 legs better.

 

Yes it was a lie. The tesitmony is available that shows that everyone up the chain of command to Panetta KNEW is was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a phony "protest" about a video that few eyes ever saw

No "if" about it. They KNEW it was an attack before Panetta went to his white house briefing and that is in testimony.

That is a question better reserved for you to answer. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and chalking it up to your partisan cognitive dissonance.

 

Again ... this is all just one gigantic huge Birther meme.because it worked
wonders for Obama.Just create a name for anyone who questions Obama's
past and the bogus BC that was offered.No matter how legit the questions
concerning Obama's highly mysterious past and a mere COLB offered as final
proof.Same exact thing here.
Just keep calling Fox news liars and some Video a true by-product of
\ what happened in Benghazi. Standard Alinsky method.
repeat a lie often enough { Some Video caused the Attack } and people are bound to
eventually believe in it.That is why the constant,never-ending attack on Fox news
credibility.That is also why Congressman Cummings threw a hissy fit during the
IRS hearing yesterday.To make it appear the democrats are getting short-shrifted by
Issa.Therefore Issa is the new Bogeyman.The democrats always have to have a
Bogeyman.To help sell THEIR LIES and pap.it's formulaic.
Create a Bogeyman and isolate it,freeze it and continually lay all the blames
of the Country on that bogeyman.It extends from Dick Cheney and waterboarding
to any Birther.
They tried that approach with the video.Anyone daring to challenge this White
House and precious Obama's word on a video being the culprit will be Birthered.
They birthered General Petraeus with that Video crap.They had to frame him
up first with a love triangle narrative ,which the MSM gobbled up and ran with as if
greatest story ever told.

 

Fox represented the stand down order as a true fact based on nothing more than some supposed unnamed source. Even when they knew they got the story wrong, the repeated it over and over and over again. It was a lie.

Shame on those who believed them and more so for those who still do.

 

Bi-partisan Senate Intel Committee report after a year of investigation:

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.

 

But there was no stand down order. So, its untrue to say there was.

[/QUOTE]

And once that stand down order was proven wrong...........they continued to parrot it as if it were true.

Nope, you do!

 

Prove that you know the difference between "being wrong" and "lying" because its quite clear that you dont................by claiming that Obama lied, when he was only wrong.

You just don't get it and have no desire to even try! Why?

 

Ummmm, you could very easily prove me wrong by showing/explaining that they DIDN"T have any reason to believe it was due to a video.

You must prove that Muslims do not attack people when they say bad things about Islam and you must prove that they were not rioting in Egypt because of the video. If you could do both of these, then you would disprove the evidence they had to believe the attack on our embassy could have been due to a video.

The sad thing is that not one conservative is willing to prove these things are wrong. Is that because they know they can't and trying would expose their failure? Hmmmmmmm!

 

Nope because they had a good reason to believe it was due to a video initially.
1. Muslims attack people when they say bad things about Islam
2. They were rioting in Egypt due to the video.

And you are confusing "video" with "terrorist attack" as if protests due to a video can't be terrorism. Why? LOL

Of course they knew it was an attack. And they thought that attack was due to a video at the time. DUH! LOL

Except you are the one thinking that a protest cannot inflict terrorism..........for some strange reason! LOL

 

After an exhaustive year long investigation, the bi-partisan report of the Senate Intel Committee shows that it's not clear they were wrong about the video at allP:

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

 

And Obama admitted it was an "act of terror" the next day.........in the Rose Garden. So where is he lying? By claiming that terrorist attack was due to a video? That's not a lie, since its quite easy to see that Muslims were rioting in Egypt due to the video and the fact that muslims attack others who say bad things about Islam.

Even if it the attack turns out to not be due to a video, then its quite a stretch of the imagination to think that "being wrong" is actually "lying".

If you do think he's lying, then you clearly don't understand the difference between "being wrong" and "lying."

Or you can prove you do no the difference and tell us what it is. But not one conservative is willing to do so? Not one conservative is willing to prove us wrong. We believe you don't know the difference and it would be quite easy to prove us wrong by tellins us the difference. But you don't want to do that for some strange reason. Why?

 

That's what Im saying. I believe there were some elements of the attack that were due to the video. Because of this evidence: 1) Muslims attack people who say bad things about Islam and 2)They were rioting in Egypt due to the video.

But even if this were to end up being wrong............it wouldn't prove that I was lying, it would only prove that I was wrong.

Its not like I believe the video had nothing to do with it, but yet Im telling you it did just to deceive you.

 

The evidence is undisputed that the CIA "talking points" memo relied upon by the Adminisrtation in the first few days after the attack indicated it was likely motivated by protests against the video seen elsewhere in the ME.

 

Sure and my point was.............what if this turns out to be wrong? Not that it has been, but what if? Would that make me wrong or a liar?

It would only mean that I was wrong. I had a very good reason to believe it was due to a video. It was logical for me to believe it was due to a video.

The only way I could be lying is if you proved that I really knew it wasn't due to a video but told you it was anyway...........with the "intent" to deceive you.

 

So, why in the word would Republicans let what happened in Benghazi go???? After all.....the Democrats in the Senate right now are STILL investigating the Bush administration! I'm betting you have no problem with that????? Am I right?

The Obama administration will be investigated long after he's out of office......especially considering they've refused to cooperate with the investigations during the administration.....like the IRS targeting of citizens, Benghazi lies and failures, the failures and illegalities of Obamacare....and on and on.....

 

Everyone knows they were lying; trying to soften what happened and that they failed to detect a PLANNED terrorist attack on 9/11. And the main reason they lied was because it was only 2 months before an election.....this was like the October "surprise" they did NOT want that could have lost them the election. And that's why they LIED as to the reasons.....in an attempt to say, "it wasn't really our fault."

BTW, when he mentioned the word terrorist.....it was in a general sense; NOT relating to what happened in Benghazi. They continued the LIE for weeks, as long as they could trying to make it past the election and to fool the American people. Obviously they were successful in making those who went ahead and voted for them into believing the administration was somehow exempt from what took place in Benghazi. MOST of us knew better......

 

Excuses, excuses.

Common sense tells us it was planned. They had to know the plans of the compound; they had to know where everybody was and that the security was lax. And in the weeks leading up to the attack even the Ambassador himself contacted his Superiors to tell them he was concerned about the threats. This is anything BUT spontaneous. Democrat supporters of Hillary and Obama might as well learn to live with those FACTS.

 

The funds were already allocated at the time. Talking about spending is irrelevant.

I'm sure you can post a link to prove that assertion, please do.

 

Nope, I proved they weren't!

Not detecting isn't lying.

Being wrong isn't lying. Why are you confusing the two and then forming a conclusion on your lack of understanding?

Your right. He was in the Rose Garden the very next day to talk about general attacks that have happened over the years! LOL

Again, being wrong isn't the same thing as lying. Sorry. Try to understand this first since its the reason the foundation of your belief is wrong! But hey, maybe I should accuse you of lying instead of being wrong.

 

JP, there were plenty of assets in the area including 2 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships, in the area with the helicopter carrying U.S.S. New York being the closest. They could have easily moved off shore in Benghazi to defend our people in advance of any attack

After all the security incidents including bombs thrown at our Consulate in Benghazi and requests for additional security, AMAZINGLY the Hillary Clinton's State Dept REDUCED security in Benghazi instead of increasing it.

I love the title of this thread "Republicans won't let Benghazi go . . .". Of course they won't nor should they. Had Hillary Clinton's State Dept and the Obama administration accurately assessed the threat to our people (duh they kept asking for more security) then "ACTED" beforehand instead of waiting till the attack was in progress before thinking about what to do, those 4 Americans might just still be alive today. They trusted our Government to protect them and they were let down. Do I think that Clinton's State Dept or the Obama administration acted or failed to act willfully...absolutely NOT. I do think that they all acted like ostriches with their heads in the sand before the attack, hoping it would settle down and go away. Then like deer in the headlights once the attack started. Neither of those qualities make for good leaders or Presidents. The OP wants to know why the "Republicans won't let Benghazi go . . ."? I believe one of the two leaders involved in the Benghazi mess wants to be our NEXT President. Failure to accurately assess real threats to our people overseas and freezing like deer in the headlights once we are attacked should NOT be on the resume of ANY future President of the United States.