Senate Report on Beghanzi proves multiple Fox Lies/Myths

Discussion in 'Media & Commentators' started by Iriemon, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  2. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Montoya

    Montoya Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,274
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And of course no evidence just Fox News parroting and typical extremist talking points.
     
  4. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't in the Report, but "additional views" of some of the Republican committee members.
     
  5. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. :)
     
  6. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's only valid for the parts she likes, obviously.
     
  8. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  9. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Senate Report blames the State Department. Who is the head of the State Department at the time?

    Hillary Clinton.
     
  10. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who was the head of national security on 9-11-11? George Bush.

    Glad we got your views on that issue straightened out.
     
  11. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still blaming Bush even after he was out of office for 2-1/2 years. Let it go, O'bamacrats, just let it go...
     
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  13. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will once you fix your damned calendar.
     
  14. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Touche.
     
  15. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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 :smile:
     
  16. 1wiseguy

    1wiseguy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought you said you read it....Maybe you should try watching FOX NEWS....:)..
    That's OWEblamer's most transparent administration for ya.
     
  17. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What an awesome post. You never disappoint. Thanks! :clapping::clapping::clapping:
     
  18. Mayerling

    Mayerling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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..
     
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    157,024
    Likes Received:
    40,120
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  20. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    157,024
    Likes Received:
    40,120
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    B...B...B....Bush

    How pitiful.

    Hillary disqualified herself for being responsible for the failures and the cover up that followed.
     
  21. Ex-lib

    Ex-lib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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....
     
  22. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  23. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113

    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.
     
  24. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,767
    Likes Received:
    13,295
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  25. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     

Share This Page