Senate Report on Beghanzi proves multiple Fox Lies/Myths

BS#1 Stand down order

Obama was absent and issued no orders to anyone, and when the second attack came, no one did a damn thing. A general and an admiral tried to help, and obama fired their asses, cause he was suspicious of their motives, for wanting to help the ambassador.

BS#2 Obama and pals got evidence from osamas hidout, that alqueda planned further attacks on the anniversary of september 11th. Al queda posted on a website that they were going to attack the british embassay in benghazi and did attack, the british pulled out. Al queda also posted on the same website they were going to attack the red cross in benghazi and they did attack, the red cross pulled out. Al queda also posted on the same website they were going to attack the US embassay and they did. obama did nothing.

Obama and pals gave heavy weapons to al queda via qatar to over throw kaddafi, al queda was incharge of the government in benghazi, their flags were flying over government buildings. only a retard would deny the ambassador the security he was asking for on the anniversary of september 11th.

BS#3 Obama knew within 15 minutes it was a terror attack, and sent susan rice out to lie for 2 weeks, and he himself lied. The washington post lists obamas lies on the subject as the No 4 biggest lie of 2013, receiving the maximum number of pinocios.

BS#4 The attack in benghazi had nothing to do with a freaking video, there was no demonstration. There was a demonstration in egypt, but not in benghazi. they have the security camera footage.

BS#5 no one knows if he went to bed or was smoking crack, but one thing is for certain, he wasnt available for penetta to talk too, or to issue any orders to stop the second attack on the CIA annex. He was absent.

 

It would be my pleasure:

Disturbing Lack of Cooperation by the State Department
As the Committee attempted to piece together key events before, during, and
after the attacks, we faced the most significant and sustained resistance from the
State Department in obtaining documents, access to witnesses, and responses to
questions. The Committee does, on occasion, deal with "jurisdictional" obstacles
that bureaucratically arise when we seek information relevant to an intelligenc~
matter, simply because the holder of the information is not an element of the IC.
Our review of the Benghazi attacks was no different. Even though the attacks
involved IC employees and the CIA Annex and it was CIA personnel who came to
the aid of the personnel at the Temporary Mission Facility, the State Department
swiftly asserted questionable jurisdictional objections and resisted full cooperation
with our review. We surmise that this lack of forthrightness stems from a desire to
protect individual political careers, now and in the future, and the Department's
reputation, at the expense of learning all the facts and apportioning responsibility."

AND.....

"This Committee faced significant resistance from the Administration in
getting access to the emails and documentation that Mr. Litt ultimately provided on
February 26, 2013, and that were then made public-in redacted form-on May
15, 2013. This resistance was apparently based, in part, on Executive branch
concerns related to executive privilege and the deliberative process which appeared
to evaporate when the emails were made public. However, it also served to
exacerbate the controversy surrounding the talking points, prolonged media IJlld
public speculation, and raised questions of trust of the IC as Members attempted to
extract information. This matter could have been mitigated much sooner if the
Executive brail.ch had promptly provided the email documentation that was
ultimately given to SSCI on February 26th and made public on May 15th."

AND....

"While the Committee has completed its report, important questions remain
unanswered as a direct result of the Obama Administration's failure to provide the
Committee with access to necessary documents and witnesses. We believe the
Administration's lack of cooperation is directly contrary to its statutory obligation
to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed and
has effectively obstructed the Committee's efforts to get to the ground truth with
respect to these remaining questions.



There are others dispersed throughout, but I'm not going to spend anymore time finding them for you. Read the entire report.

 

And of course no evidence just Fox News parroting and typical extremist talking points.

 

That isn't in the Report, but "additional views" of some of the Republican committee members.

 

It's PART of the Report. Unless you want to claim that the 'additional views' of Diane Feinstein at the end are ALSO NOT a part of the Report. That's where she attempts to protect Hillary....so I'm sure you'll want that to be included in the Report.

 

You understand that all the OP posted was from the Senate Report you posted about saying it was great in other threads? No, I know you didn't real it so I guess it get your ignorance, but lying here is funny. Now tell me again that Obama was born in Kenya.

 

It's only valid for the parts she likes, obviously.

 

It is not part of the Committee Report. The main body of the Report contains the report of the entire Senate Intelligence Committee. The separate "additional views" and the end are the "views" of the political parties, and thus much more in the nature of politically driven pap and opinion, as you point out, and thus IMO much less credible.

So I will withdraw from the OP the paragraph titled "Lie #3" as that part is not from the committee report but from the "majority" or Democratic "additional views."

The other parts of the OP quote sections of the report by the entire Committee.

 

The Senate Report blames the State Department. Who is the head of the State Department at the time?

Hillary Clinton.

 

Who was the head of national security on 9-11-11? George Bush.

Glad we got your views on that issue straightened out.

 

Still blaming Bush even after he was out of office for 2-1/2 years. Let it go, O'bamacrats, just let it go...

 

Bush had been in office 9 months when we were hit on 9-11-11 and was still in office.

If you're going to banter RW talking points, at least try to apply the appropriate one.

 

I will once you fix your damned calendar.

 

Touche.

 

Yes... the buck stops there... too bad Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton never learned that... they are still blaming Bush today.

Glad we got your views on that issue straightened out

 

I thought you said you read it....Maybe you should try watching FOX NEWS......

That's OWEblamer's most transparent administration for ya.

 

What an awesome post. You never disappoint. Thanks!

 

The amb has the last word regarding security pre Benghazi that is. He is advised by his security officer but ultimately it his call. This has changed post Benghazi however.
The amb was not killed in the embassy. The embassy is in tripoli. The consulate was in Benghazi and there is some confusion as to whether or not it was indeed a consulate..

 

It was preventable and they lied about it being a spontaneous demonstration and their knowledge it was an al Qaeda involved planned terrorist attack.

Hillary disqualified herself form Commander in Chief by her failure here and cover ups that followed.

 

B...B...B....Bush

How pitiful.

Hillary disqualified herself for being responsible for the failures and the cover up that followed.

 

If you pay close attention to what YOU are denying Iriemon, and what the actual report is saying, they are related, but not necessarily the same thing. "No stand down order" is not precluded by "there was no intentional delay". It's all in how you interpret "no intentional delay". You'll notice that the committee did NOT say that there was no "stand down order". And a stand down order could be construed as a delay by some folks, and not by others.

And just to use a 2nd example, the "Majority" concludes, the report says,...well, the word "majority" would mean that the remaining members do NOT agree, that there was no cover up by the Admin. HOW WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT? They don't have any idea what was in the minds of the Admin. And add to that the hopeful fact that 1/2 of the panel was leftwing, 1/2 right, so a "Majority" could be comprised of all the left plus only one person from the right.

Keep trying, if you want Iriemon. You know that YOU wouldn't believe this report if this was a report on the Bush Admin. Too many ifs, and maybes. And who knows how unpartisan the report is in the FIRST PLACE?

Of course you could be correct that there was no cover up, that the admin actually thought that a video was at fault, that nothing at all has been done dishonestly or incompetently by this Admin on this topic or any other in the last 5years. That IS possible, isn't it?

But really,.........do you want to buy into that belief--- after all the evidence of the last 5 years? Almost NONE of which has been literally disproved, but just implied, covered up or wormed out of....

 

My post was already addressed with the language you cited. Which as I pointed out earlier in the thread is not from the full Committee Report but the separate "views" of the Republicans. And as such, political pap.

 

The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party. ... The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community) or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.

It's crystal clear to me. The Report states it specifically looked at the "stand down" fraud perpetrated by Fox and repeated countless times her, and looked at claims that the administration prevented any military relief effort. They found nothing to substantiate the claims.

In other words, it's all RW propaganda bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Once again.

Already addressed in this thread. I'm not relying on the majority view but the full Committee report.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=339618&page=6&p=1063517536#post1063517536

I take it, however, from the thread that your position is that the Report is dubious, and therefore the Report's conclusions that State was at fault that we've seen conservatives bandy about are also dubious.

 

These people just can't accept the truth. Their ideological bigotry shows up in their rationalization of even the report to the point they make immature responses.

 

9-11 was preventable too. Hindsight is wonderful. You're argument that they lied about it based on the video is contradicted by the report.

Hillary is going to be a fine president.

- - - Updated - - -

Show hypocrisy is always relevant. It's a credibility thing.

Hillary will make a fine president.