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

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.

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.

On 11/23/2014 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.


I suppose luddite thinks is was a spontaneous action because of a video
they had never ever seen or even heard of till the day after the
attack... lol! Hey, that's what Hillary said, in fact she doesn't even
think it's worth looking into....

On 11/23/2014 5:47 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/23/2014 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.


I suppose luddite thinks is was a spontaneous action because of a video
they had never ever seen or even heard of till the day after the
attack... lol! Hey, that's what Hillary said, in fact she doesn't even
think it's worth looking into....


The recently released findings of the Republican led House Select
Intelligence Committee and the six independent investigations that
preceded it agree.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:58:54 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suppose luddite thinks is was a spontaneous action because of a video
they had never ever seen or even heard of till the day after the
attack... lol! Hey, that's what Hillary said, in fact she doesn't even
think it's worth looking into....


The recently released findings of the Republican led House Select
Intelligence Committee and the six independent investigations that
preceded it agree.

===

There you go, once again trying to ruin a perfectly good conspiracy
theory. :-)

Committee or no committee, I still wouldn't trust Hillary as far as I
could throw her however.

On 11/23/2014 6:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:58:54 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suppose luddite thinks is was a spontaneous action because of a video
they had never ever seen or even heard of till the day after the
attack... lol! Hey, that's what Hillary said, in fact she doesn't even
think it's worth looking into....


The recently released findings of the Republican led House Select
Intelligence Committee and the six independent investigations that
preceded it agree.

===

There you go, once again trying to ruin a perfectly good conspiracy
theory. :-)

Committee or no committee, I still wouldn't trust Hillary as far as I
could throw her however.



The bottom line is, I don't have a clue what really happened in Benghazi
or anywhere else in the world for that matter. I feel a bit like a
doofus though because apparently there are some here who know exactly
what went on, complete with all pertinent details, even though seven
official investigations into the matter resulted in ... nothing.

I am with you regarding Hillary. I didn't like or trust her before and
her relative silence on major issues as she "ponders" her decision to
run or not further confirms my distrust.

I think I'd like to see Jeb Bush in play for 2016. This is sorta funny
through. I was thinking back to discussions here in rec.boats back
around 1997 or 1998 the other day and I remember I posted that I'd like
to see George Bush throw his hat in the ring. Look what that got us.

On 11/23/2014 6:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:58:54 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I suppose luddite thinks is was a spontaneous action because of a video
they had never ever seen or even heard of till the day after the
attack... lol! Hey, that's what Hillary said, in fact she doesn't even
think it's worth looking into....


The recently released findings of the Republican led House Select
Intelligence Committee and the six independent investigations that
preceded it agree.

===

There you go, once again trying to ruin a perfectly good conspiracy
theory. :-)

Committee or no committee, I still wouldn't trust Hillary as far as I
could throw her however.


Remember "weapons of mass destruction"? Everybody knew the truth but the
dems used it against the repubs anyway knowing Bush wouldn't sacrifice
national interest to protect himself.

On 11/23/2014 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2014 5:47 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/23/2014 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.


I suppose luddite thinks is was a spontaneous action because of a video
they had never ever seen or even heard of till the day after the
attack... lol! Hey, that's what Hillary said, in fact she doesn't even
think it's worth looking into....


The recently released findings of the Republican led House Select
Intelligence Committee and the six independent investigations that
preceded it agree.





Yes, thank God it's a republican led house or they would not have buried
it for the CIA or POTUS.... think Olly North, or "weapons of mass
distruction"... Repubs will take a hit to protect the National Interest.

On 11/23/2014 9:10 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/23/2014 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2014 5:47 PM, KC wrote:



I suppose luddite thinks is was a spontaneous action because of a video
they had never ever seen or even heard of till the day after the
attack... lol! Hey, that's what Hillary said, in fact she doesn't even
think it's worth looking into....



The recently released findings of the Republican led House Select
Intelligence Committee and the six independent investigations that
preceded it agree.



Yes, thank God it's a republican led house or they would not have buried
it for the CIA or POTUS.... think Olly North, or "weapons of mass
distruction"... Repubs will take a hit to protect the National Interest.


you forgot to include Roswell, New Mexico and Area 51