F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/23/14 5:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 16:59:28 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/23/14 3:24 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:15:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/23/2014 3:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 14:28:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/23/2014 2:17 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/22/2014 9:27 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
You know, that non-scandal the GOPers investigated, investigated, and
investigated, and our own little PsychoScotty pushed...

Well, the GOP now admits, in writing, there was nothing of a serious
nature to be found there. Nothing.

The House Select Intelligence Committee?controlled by Republicans?has
been investigating the Benghazi attacks in minute detail for two years.
Today, with the midterm elections safely past, they issued their
findings. Their exoneration of the White House was sweeping and nearly
absolute.

The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient
security for CIA facilities in Benghazi....Appropriate U.S. personnel
made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found
no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of
available air support....

Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure
prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence
about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi,
but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11
attacks.

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals,
including those affiliated with Al Qa'ida, participated in the attacks....

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early
intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public
narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully
accurate....There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial
assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption
television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days
after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)....

Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the
talking points HPSCI asked for?and which were used for Ambassador Rice's
public appearances?was flawed....

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was
intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or
otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of
their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that
the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence
that the IC shipped arms to Syria.



I read that yesterday. Another thing that caught my attention is that
the specific report you are citing is the seventh of eight
"investigations" conducted regarding the Benghazi affair.

This report, by the House Committee, is consistent with the six
previous investigations. One more investigation is being conducted
apparently.


We, the US, were invovled in "gun running" in Libya.


Do you know that to be a fact? The CIA denies it but said they "can't
comment on other agencies".

So if the CIA doesn't know for sure, where did you get your intel?

Or is your position that the CIA is just lying?




http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-gun...-syria/5345464



John, that's one of many media reports of allegations. None have been
proven. The CIA denies it.

I am not saying the allegations are not true and I am not saying the CIA
isn't lying. BAR made a unequivocal statement that "We, the US, were
involved in "gun running" in Libya".

I simply asked where he got that factual info since no one else or any
other agency seems to know.


Given the choice between BAR and the CIA, I'd stick with BAR -
especially since so many of the various media tend to agree with him.


Indeed, the media sure has reported Darryl Issa's never-ended, dead-end
inquiries and of course, BAR is a degreed, credentialed and nationally
recognized expert in diplomacy and gun running. Oh, wait...

He's not a liar. That puts him way above you, Toad.



*snerk*

BAR's even more of an outspoken racist than you are, and he's a John Bircher.


You seem to be an expert in drug and gun running. You work with your
mobster buddies?

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/24/14 12:47 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:

He's not a liar. That puts him way above you, Toad.



*snerk*

BAR's even more of an outspoken racist than you are, and he's a John Bircher.


You seem to be an expert in drug and gun running. You work with your
mobster buddies?



The mobsters I knew were of previous generations, and all, as far as I
know, are long gone. None of them were into drug or gun running, nor were
they nearly as good at being crooks as the "banksters" of the last couple
of decades. Oh, and unlike you, they didn't hire illegals


And you don't hire anybody.