Senate Report on Beghanzi proves multiple Fox Lies/Myths

The full report includes both the majority and the minority opinions. Your "view" matters not. It's in the report, and it is in fact the truth. Your denial of all the facts is duly noted.

 

The full Committee Report is only the first section. The section quoted comes from the Republicans, not the full committee. The Democrats didn't sign off on it.

But if you want to believe that the "views" section are the truth, then you accept there was no cover up by the Clinton administration as stated in the "views" section.

 

The full report IS the everything in the report-- including both Democrat & Republican letters and not just the consensus. Bottom line: Benghazi is not a phony scandal and this administration has lied and has failed to hold anyone accountable-- including the terrorists that are responsible.

 

Why are you saying that the administration lied when the "report" you claim is true said there was no coverup, and just about everything Fox told us is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

I'm not. Those are your words.

I'm saying that the Report is the full Senate report-- the compromised points and the points from both Republican and Democrats. That's all it is. Buried in the report you'll see that on Sept. 18, 2012, the “FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.” I'm saying the report encompasses the fact that General Ham testified that he knew within 15 minutes of the attack that it was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration gone wild. General Ham then informed General Dempsey who then briefed Leon Panetta just prior to his meeting with the President... all debunking the leftist myth that what happened at Benghazi resulted from a protest about a video and is a non-scandal. The fact that Clinton and OWEblamer went out and tried to lay blame on a protest about a video was a total LIE! Rice is the only one who has plausible deny-ability , if you are to believe that she is a moron and idiot who faithfully carries the water for OWEblamer. The fact that the report has been so delayed lays credence to the Republicans "view" as to the lack of co-operation from this administration, for what should be obvious reasons to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

 

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.

The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, "They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through." In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination. Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the explicit goal of reducing information "stovepipes" between and among agencies. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Not my words. Directly from the Report.

 

Do you deny that Gen Ham knew within 15 minutes of the attack that is what not a demonstration and certainly not about a video?

 

I don't admit or deny it, I have no knowledge. Though how he could possibly have known that is certainly questionable.

What we do know is that the Senate Intel Committee Report, which you've stated is true and accurate including the separate "views" section, states there is intelligence that the attack was motivated by the video, and not something planned long in advance. We also know it says there was no cover up by the administration.

And we know that it shows that RW propaganda claims that there was a "stand down" order was bull(*)(*)(*)(*), as well as the claim that the administration did nothing or didn't deploy available resources or had prior knowledge of the attack.

 

Questionable? Really? have you heard of a telephone? Oh, of course, that's what you have to believe in order for the President is ignorant about all those other "phony scandals. Sorry, but I can't willfully suspend my disbelief as easily as folks on the left.

Once again, your words-- not mine. How about just discussing what I have actually said instead of you trying your straw man schtick? I happen to know that the report is a compromise and is not complete nor is it full of truth.

We know that this administration knew that the attack was not from a protest about a video long before Rice was sent out to push the "protest about a video" narrative, long before Clinton greeted those caskets and the families at the airport--blaming a video, long before OWEblamer tried to blame the video. That we do know from the report too, but no mention of those facts? Hmmmm..... I call that a cover up.

No "WE" don't. Those reports were based on testimony given from 8 persons who were contractors and military on the ground during the attack ...

I get it, anything that disagrees with your ideology is propaganda--- but then again, how would anyone on the left know what reporting or journalism really is since their misinformation is ideologically based.

Reporting quotes or testimony from direct sources is not propaganda, that's journalism.

 

I certainly do not have to believe your baseless, unsupported claims.

But since you've asserted the Senate Report including the "views" are the truth, we can go with that.

... there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes. ...

Fine with me. Let's use your actual words:

Not according the Report which you said is the truth, including the "views" sections:

... there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes. ...

... 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. ...

Sure we know the "stand down" claims are RW propaganda fabricated bull(*)(*)(*)(*), from the Report, acknowledged by you as "the truth":

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.

How do you "get" that?

I'm going by what you've said is the truth. The Senate report including it's "views".

 

It matters not what you believe. The truth will always remain the truth. You have been given the truth and what you do with it will determine your credibility, or lack thereof.
.

Really, more strong man arguments from you? I've asserted no such thing. Again, show me where I said the entire report is true, because you can't. Your childish attempts to keep building straw men instead of addressing what I have actually posted and quoted is duly noted and all future straw men will be ignored from here on.

No you're not. You keep constructing straw men. You must enjoy arguing with yourself-- it likely increases your chances at winning a debate.

 

I certainly do not have to believe your baseless, unsupported claims are the truth.
.

I just did it.

"Originally Posted by 1wiseguy
The full report includes both the majority and the minority opinions. Your "view" matters not. It's in the report, and it is in fact the truth.

So now, after lecturing me on how the full report which includes the majority and minority reports is the truth, you're now claiming only the parts you want to believe are the "truth"? And what is the rest of it? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) because you don't agree with it or in conflicts what you hear Sean tell you, right?

Shoot, if you were going to be completely hypocritical, you should have said so up front.

 

Well, bring them on proving this OP is a lie. Pretty simple huh, even a 5 year old would figure that one out. Now toodle along troll, your distraction is an utter failure.

 

Do you deny the OP that Fox Views lied?

 

Are you saying FNC lied? Prove it!

Are you saying that Gen Ham Lied in his testimony? Are you saying Leon Paneta Lied in his testimony? Lets see some proof!

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=339618

 

Can't answer my simple questions nor support your opinion? Got it!

 

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.

The U.S.S New York was in the Gulf of Aden at the far end of the Red Sea. With all the security warning the Clinton State Dept had, the USS New York could have been stationed offshore in Benghazi LONG BEFORE the attack.

USS New York (LPD-21) - Aircraft carried: Launch or land, two CH-53E Super Stallion, two MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, four CH-46 Sea Knight, four AH-1 SeaCobra or four UH-1 Iroquois helicopters.





Fly the Cobra's in and out of the Benghazi compound a few time. That would have sent a clear message that we were ready to defend the compound. 2 Sea Cobra's could have made short work of the attackers in that open area.

Starting in March 2012 requests for additional security were sent to the State Dept and apparently ignored. In early August the State Dept astoundingly REMOVED Security teams from Benghazi despite the repeated requests for MORE SECURITY. During the Benghazi hearings Hillary Clinton blurted out "What difference does it make". If she was referring to 4 Americans being dead, including the first American Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979, in that narrow scope she was correct we can't bring them back to life. The real problem is the breakdown in leadership to such an extent, our people in Benghazi were asking for more security and got LESS security and died because of it.

 

Thanks, but I'll rely on the findings of year long bi-partisan Senate Intelligence investigation and report over your unsupported claims.

Others can decide for themselves.

 

No, you'll rely on anything you think agrees with your opinion instead of waiting for the end of the investigation-- which the Senate report is not.

 

Feel free to back up your baseless assertions.

Not that you ever do.

 

When the premise is specious, as is the case with your premise here, I needn't do anything more than expose such blind partisan pablum for exactly what it is... which I've done.

There is no argument that the Senate Report is incomplete and lacking key personal accounts and testimony that the House investigations have uncovered and are now part of the public record.

 

Living up to your standard, again.

The conclusions of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee after a year long investigation, versus your unsupported biased say-so.

I know which I find more persuasive. Others can decide for themselves.

 

A tin foil hats beats the senate 1 year investigation, hands down. See, those tin foil hats pulls truth out of the ether. And of course very reliable

If there was dirty deeds done dirt cheap by the Administration, the republicans on that senate investigation would have screamed as much from the roof tops. Afterall, their main job was to keep Obama to one term, publically announced by old Mitch from Kentucky. When they couldn't do that, they just try to obstruct everything Obama wants. I mean, its obvious, and clear.

 

Yes. Having standards gives clarity to seeing the truth. Maybe someday you'll have some.... naw, who we kidding...that's not likely to ever happen.

My unsupported say so? And you wonder why the left is so commonly refereed to as the low information crowd?

I guess in all that ignorance this would have to be included:

But feel free to continue to deny HR 567 and the investigations that include testimony of the people who were actually on the ground at the time of the attack who dispute the Senate politically back findings. I see your up to your no standards, again.

Clearly you mistake me for one who could give a (*)(*)(*)(*)e about wasting my time trying to educate or persuade leftist dolts. Of course you will continue to be "persuded" by tripe that agrees with your uninformed opinion. That's what leftist useful idiots do!

And they have. Even and old CNN poll shows the majority disagrees with your uninformed opinion and welcome the House Investigation-- and that includes 72% Republicans, 52% Independents and 31% of democrats!.