Benghazi - Wing Nuts Want a Conspiracy So badly.....

Apparently one of the dead Americans family members has come forward to say BO, Hillary & Biden all told her, several days after the attack, that the Youtube video was the reason for the attack. (In case you missed it, State Dept officials have now said they knew it was a terrorist attack immediately and hadn't heard the video story until Rice started talking about it.)
We also now know that it was Hillary who sent Ambassador Stevens to the consulate in Benghazi and he told her from Day 1 that added security was necessary.
I'll bet Hillary had no idea this tragedy would be exposed for what it is & that she would be fighting to keep from being prosecuted- she just thought she was helping BO cover his a** until after the election.

 

Hey Hillary, what were you thinking when you rec'd that 3:00am call?

 

The essence of this isn't whether the assassins killed our Ambassador because of an anti-Islam video, a planned al-Qaeda attack or (as Hillary said) maybe the terrorists were going out for a walk. What DOES matter is that the White House/State Department covered up the fact that they knew it was a planned attack by members of al-Qaeda.

So, incredible as it may seem, the coverup has been revealed. The question now becomes "Why?" We can only guess the answer to that. But, this terrible scandal isn't going away any time soon.

 

You know, FOX has this little reputation of just making things up aside from just being the mouthpiece for the GOP. Why would anyone believe anything FOX printed? They have have stated in open court cases that they reserve the right to lie under their first Amendment rights. Please use reputable sources in the future.

The essence IS that the Right-wing is completely fixated on what happened AFTER the attack and what was said when few facts were actually known. They seem to have no interest whatsoever in finding out how this tragedy happened or how to prevent it from happening again. They just want to assign as much blame as possible purely for political purposes. That's why the rest of us just don't care what you and FOX think about this terrible tragedy no matter how you try to spin it.

 

As posted earlier;

Now, I will let you impose why it became the film, but Hillary knew exactly what had happened and who did it the night of the attacks - from as close to the horses mouth as she could get at the moment.

 

Hey, Teddy. Not one word of this is Fox - except your/msnbc lies. Everything I have cited is ABC or what I heard from the Congressional hearings. Are you trying to say they are not reputable? I guarantee MSNBC is not. They are not even news. They have zero news - 100% opinion.

 

The "why" is pretty apparent...Al Queda is alive & well and looking to attack us at every opportunity. The admin's role (both it's actions & failures to act) is the deaths of 4 Americans is what needs to be scrutinized. Why didn't Hillary honor Stevens' request for more security? What didn't the admin act on intel indicating an attack was planned for 9/11? Why wasn't help sent in as our people were being attacked? Why did BO concoct this silly Youtube video excuse?
......and don't blame it on "the fog of war".

 

This is just your feeble attempt to take the conversation onto a tangent. We're not debating FOX News here. I quoted FOX News who was quoting ABC News. I could just as easily have quoted ABC News directly but find it easier on FOX's website when I copy a news article (their website doesn't add a lot of extraneous info and it also embeds a hyperlink automatically).

So, how about talking about the coverup instead of trying to take the conversation into a partisan diatribe about FOX News?

Now, back to the Benghazi coverup...

 

No, as usual, FOX snips and cuts the parts it wants to ignore. This is the ABC article...

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

AFP/Getty Images
Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”​

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi
Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.
“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”
UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.
In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”
One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...t-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

 

Boy, the WH looks to be spinning in circles, based on what ol' "fog of war" moen just posted. They've come up with so many excuses to cover their a** that they can't keep the stories or the players straight...forget the scandal for a moment, the above post proves the ineptness of our current administration.

 

Excuses or reasons? You are such partisan idiots that you wouldn't know the truth of any situation because all you want is to bring down an administration. It isn't going to happen and you might as well hear it from me. FOX isn't going to tell you this. They'll just keep selling you fear, lies, and of course gold.

Anyone want to take bets that this Right-wing Benghazi conspiracy nonsense leads to absolutely nothing except one big tax funded witch hunt? It'll be funny to watch you losers lather your jeans over it in the mean time.

 

Exactly the same thing happened under Reagan after the 1986 bombings. If you are too naive to believe in the fog of war, you are simply too naive to even be in any conversation on this topic. Maybe you should try to put your partisan hatred aside and see if your vision clears up.

My own sense is that the criticisms of NPR have become conflated with the criticisms of the Obama administration. It is not my place to judge the administration's actions; you will have your own opinion. But there is nothing that I have seen in those actions to justify a running framing of the Benghazi coverage as a cover-up, as some critics of NPR seem to want to do. This is not to say that reporters should not investigate the possibility of cover-up, but journalistic fairness so far seems to me to require a framing of the government's statements as consistent with the standard confusion of information in the fog of war.

The Reagan administration's statements on the 1986 bombing, for example, were filled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, as I was to find reporting on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi. But I didn't expect otherwise, especially in statements from distant Washington. As the Reagan administration was then, the Obama administration and the non-political, professional arms of the CIA, FBI and State Department Foreign Service are today at a similar disadvantage of limited information and distance, with little ability even to send investigative teams to Benghazi.
But this is a presidential election season, and many of the criticisms themselves seem to originate in political motivation (Ya---AH!) or in shallow cynicism about everything the media does. What we want from NPR is calm, fair and independent reporting and analysis. So far, we are getting it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/09/29/161972728/the-fog-of-war-in-benghazi-and-washington

 

Are you really that stupid/ignorant or are you just playing that way?

 

You seem to think this is some sort of political game. Perhaps to the Democrats in Congress it is. But, to the American people who really care about this, it's not a game at all. Four Americans died that night in Benghazi (as if you actually care) and the American people are owed the truth. So far, the truth has not been forthcoming. Will anything come of the Benghazi hearings? Will Obama be impeached or will Hillary be indicted? No, of course not. The Democrats in Congress hold too much power at this point in time to allow that to happen.

But, that's not the point. The point is that we were lied to by our leaders. If that means nothing to you, move along. But, if you want accountability and responsibility from your leaders, then pay attention.

 

I am not saying you are wrong, but at least one somebody is.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/huckabee-benghazi-will-drive-obama-from-office-90964.html#ixzz2SzgoV8bo​

 

Can I vote for both?

 

I'd heard that Huckabee made that statement, but in addition to Democrats controlling the Senate, the apathy of the American people, the partisan, goose-stepping Obamunists and the lamestreet media, Obama and Hillary will skate through this. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean they didn't lie to us and covered up the truth. However, there are those of use who open our eyes, think for ourselves and make our own judgments based on facts and refuse to follow the stupidity of the Left.

 

From the little tidbits I have heard, I think the media might actually be stirring a bit. If they actually cover some of this, and the Republicans don't let up, there is a real chance something serious could actual come out of it. I would not bet against Obama yet, but I think Hillary could well be in trouble.

 

I agree. Hillary took responsibility, as well she should being the head of the agency. She knew within hours that the attack was from Ansar al-Sharia, not caused by a stupid anti-Islam video or by a Florida preacher as some here have asserted, yet she pushed the lie of the video on the American people. Then she testified to Congress and covered it up.

She's a known liar (remember the "sniping" incident?). This doesn't surprise me that she's lying and covering up facts. She did the same thing at Rose Law Firm when she was shredding documents.

The liberals are going to do everything they can to cover for this woman because she is their darling and their best hope in 2016. That includes using their compatriots in the media to quell any truth about Benghazi. But, I think public opinion could easily turn against her if the conservatives are able to get the truth out about her concerning Benghazi.