Re: Benghazi info released.

Achigan Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:53 pm

News Buzzard wrote:
WHL wrote:I could ask you the same question.

My guy won, 332 to 206 electoral votes. No frustration here!

That's right NB and our girl will the next time.

Outerlimits Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:55 pm

News Buzzard wrote:He didn't lie, and your crackerjack investigator, Darrell Issa, has come up empty!

How frustrating is it to repeatedly beat a dead horse??

He did lie and Issa is not done yet…sorry

The "Benghazi was an upset mob made about a video" was the official story from the White House that has never been recanted. Obama still has never said it was an organized armed assault by some Al Qaeda friendly thugs.

Obama lied about the cause, the aftermath, has tried everything including threats and intimidation to keep every witness from ever being deposed by Congress, and has threatened everyone who was involved to keep silent and never tell what happened.
This isn't a scandal, this is blatant and wanton cover-up of malfeasance.

What's amazing is that YOU DO NOT CARE. Your partisan interests supercede all other interests.

Did you forget about Obama and Hillary Clinton using tax payer money to buy television ads in Pakistan and condemning the video?

The Senate report and the transcripts of General Ham that were declassified on Tuesday prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the administration KNEW THAT DAY what caused the attack.

Remember:

The earlier versions of the talking points did include references to evidence that an al Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia, took part in the attack. They also included references to earlier CIA warnings about the terrorist threat in Benghazi.

All of that was edited out. The emails released by the White House show that the deletions were made after State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland asked for those terrorist references to be removed.

Your girl isn't off the Benghazi hot seat just yet

Achigan Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:04 pm

Outerlimits wrote:
News Buzzard wrote:He didn't lie, and your crackerjack investigator, Darrell Issa, has come up empty!

How frustrating is it to repeatedly beat a dead horse??
He did lie and Issa is not done yet…sorry

Do you believe this quote that I found?

"There was never a question concerning U.S. resolve or the overall capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to Benghazi. There was, however, nothing immediate about an immediate response. There were logistics and host-nation approvals to consider. An immediate response was hampered by the equation of geography and logistics."

**WHL** Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:38 pm

Outerlimits wrote:
News Buzzard wrote:He didn't lie, and your crackerjack investigator, Darrell Issa, has come up empty!

How frustrating is it to repeatedly beat a dead horse??

He did lie and Issa is not done yet…sorry

The "Benghazi was an upset mob made about a video" was the official story from the White House that has never been recanted. Obama still has never said it was an organized armed assault by some Al Qaeda friendly thugs.

Obama lied about the cause, the aftermath, has tried everything including threats and intimidation to keep every witness from ever being deposed by Congress, and has threatened everyone who was involved to keep silent and never tell what happened.
This isn't a scandal, this is blatant and wanton cover-up of malfeasance.

What's amazing is that YOU DO NOT CARE. Your partisan interests supercede all other interests.

Did you forget about Obama and Hillary Clinton using tax payer money to buy television ads in Pakistan and condemning the video?

The Senate report and the transcripts of General Ham that were declassified on Tuesday prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the administration KNEW THAT DAY what caused the attack.

Remember:

The earlier versions of the talking points did include references to evidence that an al Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia, took part in the attack. They also included references to earlier CIA warnings about the terrorist threat in Benghazi.

All of that was edited out. The emails released by the White House show that the deletions were made after State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland asked for those terrorist references to be removed.

Your girl isn't off the Benghazi hot seat just yet

This is the bottom line, outer. His partisan interests supercedes all his thought process. He cannot see the reality of things.

fshnski Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:16 am

The militants who gathered on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, to torch and kill inside the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, were a who’s who of the modern al Qaeda movement, newly declassified documents show.
Since its attacks on the U.S. in 2001, al Qaeda has worked to establish partners outside its base in Pakistan, especially in North Africa and the new fertile territory of eastern Libya and the port city of Benghazi.
SEE ALSO: CURL: The drip, drip, drip of Benghazi
All of al Qaeda’s work converged that night in Benghazi, according to a bipartisan report last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Global jihadists created a sort of convention of at least four terrorist franchises, complete with rocket-propelled grenades and diesel fuel.
The Senate report, containing newly declassified intelligence data, coincided with the release of once-secret transcripts from the House Armed Services Committee on what the military thought and did that day.
The twin disclosures provide an even fuller picture of who killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs defending a nearby CIA annex. They show that the nation’s most senior military leaders quickly concluded that the carnage was a terrorist attack, even though the White House persisted for more than a week in calling the attack a spontaneous act of irate demonstrators

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/jihadists-from-at-least-four-al-qaeda-groups-in-on/#ixzz2qwqgmbfJ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

News Buzzard Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:00 pm

Still not getting anywhere with the Benghazi Hoax! Neither will Issa.

fshnski Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:52 pm

In the days after the attack, the Obama administration dispatched the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, to the Sunday talk shows to detail what the White House knew. She said on Sept. 16 that the attackers gathered “spontaneously” to protest at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. Within days, security footage from inside the compound proved there was no protest, but months later, Mrs. Clinton asked: “Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night and decided to go kill some Americans? At this point what difference does it make, senator?”

What’s more, the report concluded that terrorists connected to al Qaeda were in fact present at the attack — contradicting what a December article in The New York Times asserted. “Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP (al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), and the Mohammad Jamal Network (which the State Department says is connected to al Qaeda), participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks,” the report said.

In fact, the report uses the word “terrorist” 70 times — something it took the president and his minions weeks to use. Later reports show the White House knew within hours that the attack was terrorism.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/curl-the-drip-drip-drip-of-benghazi/#ixzz2qyDFhAU2
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

News Hawk Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:21 pm

fshnski wrote:"...Later reports show the White House knew within hours that the attack was terrorism...

Do you think it was the use of mortars?

drunken

.

News Hawk Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:46 pm

News Buzzard wrote:Still not getting anywhere with the Benghazi Hoax! Neither will Issa.

If Hillary is nominated, I have a suggestion for the Republican nominee:

When speaking at a military base, be sure to utter the words,

"What Difference Does It Make"

Since most of the dead were military personnel, I can just imagine the roar.

Veterans and Patriots would be estatic!

.

**WHL** Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:48 am

Not only the Benghazi thing, but remind the troops how many were killed in Iraq and not it looks like all that was for nothing. If we are allowing it to be taking over again, we never should have gone there in the first place. And I know, Bush started it. He never should have gone in. Or go in and get the job done. don't let our kids get killed for nothing.

News Buzzard Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:32 am

WHL wrote:we never should have gone there in the first place. And I know, Bush started it. He never should have gone in.

Bingo! The root of all our problems over there. That wasn't the only colossal mistake Bush made, but it's a lot easier to blame Obama for everything!

**WHL** Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:57 am

I didn't blame Obama did I? But you notice, he hasn't gotten us out of there very fast.

News Buzzard Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:09 am

The concept you never got, or refuse to accept, is that the debacle we know as the Bush Administration will be with us for decades. You would have liked to turn the page on Bush on January 20, 2009, but that wasn't meant to be.

Obama kept us in Iraq longer than we would have liked so as not to lose the country, but unfortunately it appears that they may be in trouble.

We're not going back to Iraq! It's Bush's mistake and legacy! (Really Cheney's)

News Hawk Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:56 am

News Buzzard wrote:Bingo! The root of all our problems over there. That wasn't the only colossal mistake Bush made

Yep.

Benghazi info released. - Page 3 As-I-plunge

.

Outerlimits Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:02 am

With the thread title: Benghazi info released.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before it ended up circling back to President Bush. Talk about beating a dead horse.

News Hawk Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:15 am

News Hawk wrote:
News Buzzard wrote:Still not getting anywhere with the Benghazi Hoax!

If Hillary is nominated, I have a suggestion for the Republican nominee:

When speaking at a military base, be sure to utter the words,

"What Difference Does It Make?"

Since three of the dead were military personnel, I can just imagine hearing the roar from those gathered.

Veterans and Patriots would be cheering—and—wildly!

.

News Buzzard Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:43 pm

Outerlimits wrote:With the thread title: Benghazi info released.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before it ended up circling back to President Bush. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Read the thread again. WHL is the one who re-introduced Bush!

**WHL** Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:05 pm

I beat him to it Outer. I said it is all Bush's fault before he could!!!! lol!

News Hawk Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:10 pm

News Buzzard wrote:Still not getting anywhere with the Benghazi Hoax! Neither will Issa.

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

And...

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/

.

News Buzzard Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:40 am

The newly released E-mails "suggest..........." Rolling Eyes

**WHL** Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:28 am

I heard that too. That proves what we have been saying all along, NH. Suggests, NB???

News Buzzard Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:49 am

Nothing changes the fact that the CIA warned the Administration prior to the attack that social media over there was pointing to a demonstration on the day of the attack, and the NY Times found that the video was a contributing factor. The Obamahaters will still spin their wheels over this!

"Our goal is to make Obama a one (two) term president" (Screw the fact that we're supposed to govern)

News Hawk Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:24 am

News Buzzard wrote:Nothing changes the fact that the CIA warned the Administration prior to the attack that social media over there was pointing to a demonstration on the day of the attack, and the NY Times found that the video was a contributing factor. The Obamahaters will still spin their wheels over this!

A "demonstration" that included mortar-shells?

scratch

.

Outerlimits Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:14 am

So after years of News Buzzard claiming Benghazi is a phony scandal and not news…

We now find proof that the White House covered up the deaths of American citizens.

Of course, when a lane on a bridge in New Jersey was closed for a couple of hours, we had outrage, but then the governor there was a Republican, so that changes everything.

Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.”

Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.

Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.

The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Finally, after puttering around with stories and videos and lies after the attacks, Congress is beginning to get at the real scandal in Benghazi.

What happened after the attacks, and who lied to whom and how, is less important than why security there was left to deteriorate for months, even while attacks were going on, bombs were blowing 12-foot holes in the consulate walls, and Amb. Stevens was pleading for months for more security.

That summer, Obama was crowing over "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!". He was desperately trying to fool American voters into thinking he had defeated Al Qaeda and they were "on the run". And the increasing attacks by Al Qaeda were not fitting into the glossy image he was trying to project.

Sending MORE security into areas like Benghazi, Cairo etc. would have done even more harm to his story... so he simply didn't do it. Instead he reduced security, pulled out American agents, and in some cases substituted Libyan personnel for the American security troops. He was hoping this would look good to American voters who weren't paying much attention.

News Buzzard Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:06 pm

It's still a phony scandal that won't materialize into anything.

Sponsored content

Benghazi info released.