|
Remember Benghazi?
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. -- One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport… Thirty one school shootings since Columbine and counting and *no change* in gun regulations. |
Remember Benghazi?
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:27:20 -0500, 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. Good. They investigated and cleared those being investigated. That's the way the system is supposed to work, Toad. The Grand Jury in Ferguson will soon provide its findings. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Zimmerman was found not guilty. That's the way the system works. Why does that **** you off, Toad? |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/22/2014 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:27:20 -0500, 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. Good. They investigated and cleared those being investigated. That's the way the system is supposed to work, Toad. The Grand Jury in Ferguson will soon provide its findings. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Zimmerman was found not guilty. That's the way the system works. Why does that **** you off, Toad? Well, I guess after years of stonewalling and still missing thousands of papers, non-appearances by the key players we can assume I guess that either they just gave up or they just decided the weapons sales was not something they wanted to write about for nat security reasons... So move on... |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/22/2014 10:29 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/22/2014 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:27:20 -0500, 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. Good. They investigated and cleared those being investigated. That's the way the system is supposed to work, Toad. The Grand Jury in Ferguson will soon provide its findings. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Zimmerman was found not guilty. That's the way the system works. Why does that **** you off, Toad? Well, I guess after years of stonewalling and still missing thousands of papers, non-appearances by the key players we can assume I guess that either they just gave up or they just decided the weapons sales was not something they wanted to write about for nat security reasons... So move on... Trust me, if it was a repub pres the facts would come streaming out, even if it was against the best interest of the nation. We saw "leaks" put Bush into some pretty hairy situations where he couldn't really come out and defend himself because of nat sec... like "weapons of mass distruction".... |
Remember Benghazi?
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
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. The GOPers were only interested in drumming up scandals. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/22/14 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:27:20 -0500, 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. Good. They investigated and cleared those being investigated. That's the way the system is supposed to work, Toad. The Grand Jury in Ferguson will soon provide its findings. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Zimmerman was found not guilty. That's the way the system works. Why does that **** you off, Toad? I have virtually no confidence in the American legal system as it pertains to and treats minorities. Zimmerman was and is a thug. As for the RepubliThug investigations of Benghazi, they had nothing to with anything *but* politics. -- One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport… Thirty one school shootings since Columbine and counting and *no change* in gun regulations. |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/22/2014 12:17 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/22/14 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:27:20 -0500, 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. Good. They investigated and cleared those being investigated. That's the way the system is supposed to work, Toad. The Grand Jury in Ferguson will soon provide its findings. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Zimmerman was found not guilty. That's the way the system works. Why does that **** you off, Toad? I have virtually no confidence in the American legal system as it pertains to and treats minorities. Zimmerman was and is a thug. As for the RepubliThug investigations of Benghazi, they had nothing to with anything *but* politics. Zimmerman performed a service and that's the thanks you give him? |
Remember Benghazi?
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 |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:17:14 AM UTC-8, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/22/14 10:08 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:27:20 -0500, 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. Good. They investigated and cleared those being investigated. That's the way the system is supposed to work, Toad. The Grand Jury in Ferguson will soon provide its findings. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Zimmerman was found not guilty. That's the way the system works. Why does that **** you off, Toad? I have virtually no confidence in the American legal system as it pertains to and treats minorities. Zimmerman was and is a thug. OJ was a minority thug as well. He walked. Cochran was a minority racist who pulled the race card. He won. Think of a better line Krause. |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:18:21 -0500, 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. That can be true only if Luddite chimes in with 'it's ingrained' or some such. Like I said, he's not a liar, which puts him way above you, Toad. |
Remember Benghazi?
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. Actually, it was missiles, but it's all the same... Fortunately for our CIA and others repubs put security and patriotism above personal vendettas.. if this was a repub president the libs could get a bit of political gain, they would be singing it far and wide, outing the agents and process just in time for the next election.... |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/23/2014 2:28 PM, 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? Charles Krauthhammer(sp?) and several other respectable journalists but it was missiles not guns... |
Remember Benghazi?
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 Hey John, the CIA denied it! You would think they would be happy to open their books to AlQueda and the rest of the world on exactly this operation ran, and who ran it... but for some strange reason, they say they weren't involved.. Imagine that, the CIA working under cover, damn them.... lol... |
Remember Benghazi?
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.... |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
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 Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:31:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. === I agree about Jeb even though I wouldn't be all that excited about another Bush in the Whitehouse. Of all the possible Republican candidates that we know about now, he's probably the only one that's electable. He seems to have done a decent job as governor of Florida although I did not live here then. He'll have to get by the right wing crazy faction of the party to get the nomination and that may not be easy. |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/23/2014 7:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:31:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I agree about Jeb even though I wouldn't be all that excited about another Bush in the Whitehouse. Of all the possible Republican candidates that we know about now, he's probably the only one that's electable. He seems to have done a decent job as governor of Florida although I did not live here then. He'll have to get by the right wing crazy faction of the party to get the nomination and that may not be easy. He was the governor during the three+ years we had a place down there. My recollection is that he was well liked, respected and moderate in his politics. He received high grades for his responses to the three hurricanes that occurred during the time we were there. He's more cerebral than his brother. |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/23/2014 7:58 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/23/14 7:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:31:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I agree about Jeb even though I wouldn't be all that excited about another Bush in the Whitehouse. Of all the possible Republican candidates that we know about now, he's probably the only one that's electable. He seems to have done a decent job as governor of Florida although I did not live here then. He'll have to get by the right wing crazy faction of the party to get the nomination and that may not be easy. Kinda hoping the GOPers nominate one of the many right wing crazies in their party, the crazier the better. Kinda hoping the GOP has learned a lesson and ignores the crazies. |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
Remember Benghazi?
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 |
Remember Benghazi?
On 11/23/2014 9:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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 plonk |
Remember Benghazi?
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 20:07:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/23/2014 7:58 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/23/14 7:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:31:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I agree about Jeb even though I wouldn't be all that excited about another Bush in the Whitehouse. Of all the possible Republican candidates that we know about now, he's probably the only one that's electable. He seems to have done a decent job as governor of Florida although I did not live here then. He'll have to get by the right wing crazy faction of the party to get the nomination and that may not be easy. Kinda hoping the GOPers nominate one of the many right wing crazies in their party, the crazier the better. Kinda hoping the GOP has learned a lesson and ignores the crazies. === We'll see. |
Remember Benghazi?
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? |
Remember Benghazi?
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com