A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.
Thoughts?
Any mention of the fall guy that ended up going back to jail for making the Muslim mockery flick?
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Any mention of the fall guy that ended up going back to jail for making the Muslim mockery flick? [/quote]
The “film” Innocence of Muslims had nothing to do with the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Also, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had an extensive criminal record and violated his probation. He’s hardly a scape goat.
crickets
This report confirms much of the worst:
“No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts,” the report added.
And then:
On Saturday September 14, 2012, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes wrote in an email titled “PREP CALL with Susan,” that one of the goals for the administration’s public statements should be “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
And:
The report found the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs made three “substantive” changes to the talking points that included the removal of references to Al Qaeda and swapping the word “attacks” with “demonstrations.” It is not clear from the publicly available, and heavily redacted emails exactly who made the changes and who directed them…
Obama, the State Department and the CIA colluded to lie to the people, absolve Islamic terrorists and Islam of culpability and portray the attacks as a reaction against right-wing Islamophobia. This charming piece of bullshit appears to have originated with intelligence analysts and was latched onto by Rice, Hillary and Obama. Knowing full well it was a lie they pronounced it over the graves of the victims and repeated it for weeks on end.
Gee, no comments about some snotty little left-wing, ideologue intelligence analyst conspiring to lie about the terrorist attack on the embassy and cybcically abuse the public outrage by channeling towards “right-wingers” and “bible thumpers” - yes they did it! It was the right-wingers again. They provoked a spontaneous demonstration!
Susan Rice latches onto this known lie; Hillary grabs it; Obams. Weeks on end of blaming Christians; some poor, hapless film maker thrown in jail. Weeks on end of lying and absolving al Qaeda and blaming “Islamophobic right-wingers”.
No comment on this? I think it reveals just how fundamentally compromised these people(Obama, Hillary et al) are. The terrifying irrationalism and deceit. They all knew from the start it was a sophisticated terrorist attack and that there were no demonstrations at any time. This is where appeasement crosses over into treason, quite literally. As the weeks went by they knew it was an al Qaeda attack, planned months in advance and involved numerous cells with dozens of foreign fighters. Obama and Hillary then:
Had press briefings altered to remove the words that conveyed the true facts; “al Qaeda” and “terrorists” etc., and then replaced them with new words to fabricate a complete fiction: “demonstration” replaced “terrorists”. Mile Mullen at the CIA oversaw the left-wing conspiracy of Obama, Rice and Hillary. That’s what it was. A nefarious conspiracy to absolve terrorists of the attack and to place the blame; to identify as the prime instigator, some obscure Christian pastor in the Midwest or wherever. Because that’s precisely what they did is it not? And yet this infamy passes under the radar…(crickets)…
While your view is polarized, I think any administration regardless of political affiliation, will attempt to hide or at least mask their shortcomings and failures.
I would also like to point out that the outgoing chairman’s wife happens to be either CEO or ranking board member of the contractor who was responsible for providing security services to our embassies.
So where is the bigger shame: failing to protect our interests or attempting to hide our failures?
Maxwell’s assertion that there was a paper shredding frenzy to “protect the seventh floor” was completely ignored by the MSLM.
I guess they shredded enough documents so that the “independent investigation” didn’t find anything conclusive. How are people so fucking blind to the criminal acts that this administration commits to save it’s own ass? Time and time again, it’s stonewalls and lies and “executive privilege”. Un fucking believable.
But nothing will happen. The GOP lacks the testicular fortitude to do what’s right. All each side cares about is their own party. Neither party gives a FUCK about the Constitution or about representing American citizens in a way that will serve their best interest. It’s just money, power and politics.
So we are to believe there was no “Stand Down” order?
This smells of back-room deal brokering because it’s not just the administration’s hands that are dirty in this. This goes far and wide.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
While your view is polarized,
[/quote]
My view isn’t polarised. Think about the enormity of it for a minute. Al Qaeda planned this sophisticated terrorist attack. The administration systematically suppressed the nature of the attack, the perpetrators and their motivation. They(the administration) then persistently blamed the attack on; and identified as the prime instigator a Christian pastor and “Islamophobes”. This is beyond domestic politics. [b]Al Qaeda is the enemy. We are at war with them. The Obama administration hid AQ involvement, lied about the nature of the whole incident and blamed an obscure American anti-Islam activist of all people.
Imagine if Bush had covered up Abu Ghraib and blamed it all on some domestic anti-war activist or something; stuck to the story for weeks on end. It would’ve ended his presidency in one way or another.
Yeah, this is only one of many investigations and it doesn’t look very thorough. The most damaging stuff didn’t even come out in this investigation; it came to light after a FOI request by JudicialWatch. You’ve got to wonder how deeply they’re digging when they missed that.
The big issue here is the conspiracy to lie to the people for weeks on; absolving our enemy(AQ) and blaming domestic “right-wingers” for the whole thing.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/24/20-ways-media-completely-misread-congress-weak-sauce-benghazi-report/[/quote]
So your retort to an extensive two year investigation that produced a several hundred page report is to cite an a “foreign policy” article with the words “weak sauce” in the title and whose author recently wrote the rigorous piece below? Ok.
“The Federalist Editors And Friends Discuss Kim Kardashianâ??s Butt
Kim Kardashian bares her derrière on the cover of a magazine, leading to a discussion of Grace Jones, desexualization and â??shelf butt contraptions.â??”
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/24/20-ways-media-completely-misread-congress-weak-sauce-benghazi-report/[/quote]
So your retort to an extensive two year investigation that produced a several hundred page report is to cite an a “foreign policy” article with the words “weak sauce” in the title and whose author recently wrote the rigorous piece below? Ok.
“The Federalist Editors And Friends Discuss Kim Kardashianâ??s Butt
Kim Kardashian bares her derriÃ?¨re on the cover of a magazine, leading to a discussion of Grace Jones, desexualization and â??shelf butt contraptions.â??”
[/quote]
OK, I admit up front that I will not invest much energy or effort in follow up efforts. However, it appears that you are being a little misleading here. The report appears to be strictly about the CIA and military response in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Although we can all Monday morning quaterback the issue as to how it should have been done, it appears that the powers that be put up at least the minimum required response under the circumstances.
What I am not taking away from the report is that the admin was “righteous” in their thrown together cover story of how the event took place, who the perpetrators were, and what instigated the incident. If I am missing something, please do correct me.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/24/20-ways-media-completely-misread-congress-weak-sauce-benghazi-report/[/quote]
So your retort to an extensive two year investigation that produced a several hundred page report is to cite an a “foreign policy” article with the words “weak sauce” in the title and whose author recently wrote the rigorous piece below? Ok.
“The Federalist Editors And Friends Discuss Kim Kardashianâ??s Butt
Kim Kardashian bares her derriÃ?¨re on the cover of a magazine, leading to a discussion of Grace Jones, desexualization and â??shelf butt contraptions.â??”
[/quote]
I didn’t write the article I linked to but it seemed to me to have the right tone properly befitting that sham of a report.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/24/20-ways-media-completely-misread-congress-weak-sauce-benghazi-report/[/quote]
So your retort to an extensive two year investigation that produced a several hundred page report is to cite an a “foreign policy” article with the words “weak sauce” in the title and whose author recently wrote the rigorous piece below? Ok.
“The Federalist Editors And Friends Discuss Kim KardashianÃ?¢??s Butt
Kim Kardashian bares her derriÃ??Ã?¨re on the cover of a magazine, leading to a discussion of Grace Jones, desexualization and Ã?¢??shelf butt contraptions.Ã?¢??”
[/quote]
I didn’t write the article I linked to but it seemed to me to have the right tone properly befitting that sham of a report.
[/quote]
Have you studied the latest report in its entirety, or the numerous preceding reports?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/24/20-ways-media-completely-misread-congress-weak-sauce-benghazi-report/[/quote]
So your retort to an extensive two year investigation that produced a several hundred page report is to cite an a “foreign policy” article with the words “weak sauce” in the title and whose author recently wrote the rigorous piece below? Ok.
“The Federalist Editors And Friends Discuss Kim KardashianÃ??Ã?¢??s Butt
Kim Kardashian bares her derriÃ???Ã??Ã?¨re on the cover of a magazine, leading to a discussion of Grace Jones, desexualization and Ã??Ã?¢??shelf butt contraptions.Ã??Ã?¢??”
[/quote]
I didn’t write the article I linked to but it seemed to me to have the right tone properly befitting that sham of a report.
[/quote]
Have you studied the latest report in its entirety, or the numerous preceding reports?[/quote]
I have read the salient points. I have neither the time nor inclination to read the entire report. Do you have any quibble with the points made in the article I linked or are you as usual going to limit your criticism to snarky remarks?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Imagine if Bush had covered up Abu Ghraib and blamed it all on some domestic anti-war activist or something; stuck to the story for weeks on end. It would’ve ended his presidency in one way or another.
[/quote]
Regan emerged relatively unscathed from Iran-Contra. History has generally forgotten about it.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Imagine if Bush had covered up Abu Ghraib and blamed it all on some domestic anti-war activist or something; stuck to the story for weeks on end. It would’ve ended his presidency in one way or another.
[/quote]
Regan emerged relatively unscathed from Iran-Contra. History has generally forgotten about it.
[/quote]
As well as with the deaths of 300 Marines and French Paratroopers in the Beirut Barracks Bombing.
Mufasa
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/24/20-ways-media-completely-misread-congress-weak-sauce-benghazi-report/[/quote]
So your retort to an extensive two year investigation that produced a several hundred page report is to cite an a “foreign policy” article with the words “weak sauce” in the title and whose author recently wrote the rigorous piece below? Ok.
“The Federalist Editors And Friends Discuss Kim Kardashianâ??s Butt
Kim Kardashian bares her derriÃ?¨re on the cover of a magazine, leading to a discussion of Grace Jones, desexualization and â??shelf butt contraptions.â??”
[/quote]
lol.