House Intelligence Committee Report on Benghazi Exonerates Clinton, Administration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We heard conservative posters say that they deliberately spun the protest story for the benefit in the 2012 elections. Untrue

Delusional. Just look at he debate with Romney. Then, look at the 60 Minutes interview that was not released before the election. The one where he admitted to not calling it a terrorist attack.

The fact that you refuse to read and cite the contents of the report is admission enough that you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

The fact that you refuse to read and cite the contents of the report is admission enough that you are wrong.

Oh, I have read it. Thank God for the teacher I had in high school who taught us to read and think at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We heard conservative posters say that they deliberately spun the protest story for the benefit in the 2012 elections. Untrue

Delusional. Just look at he debate with Romney. Then, look at the 60 Minutes interview that was not released before the election. The one where he admitted to not calling it a terrorist attack.

Romney was proved wrong in the debate within minutes of making his statement, and 60 Minutes has less than zero credibility on this topic. Go take your meds and then read the actual report.

[Anonymous]

Romney was proved wrong in the debate within minutes of making his statement, and 60 Minutes has less than zero credibility on this topic. Go take your meds and then read the actual report.

So, Obama admitting that he didn't call it terrorism on the tape is zero credibility? You must not have seen it. Just like you haven't read the report--just the Huffpo version.

[Anonymous]

We heard you say that Ambassador Rice lied to the UN. Untrue. The consensus on what happened only formed within the intelligence community two days later, when they got video.

The intell community never blamed it on a video.

[Anonymous]

The intell community never blamed it on a video.

But, Rice, Obama and Hillary did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We heard you say that Ambassador Rice lied to the UN. Untrue. The consensus on what happened only formed within the intelligence community two days later, when they got video.

The intell community never blamed it on a video.

so once again, you aren't going to read the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The fact that you refuse to read and cite the contents of the report is admission enough that you are wrong.

Oh, I have read it. Thank God for the teacher I had in high school who taught us to read and think at the same time.

one thing is for certain: she never taught you how to prove a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1). This was not Gowdy's report. I'll wait for that
2) It does no such thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/22/leading-republican-wants-senate-to-join-house-probe-benghazi-attack/?intcmp=latestnews

In fact, it says the WH twisted things and stuck to talking points about the video, etc

I suggest you read the article I posted above, which digs deeper into the report. Left media is already attacking FOx, which tells me Fox is clearly onto something

Uh, it's only 37 pages. If you haven't read it you should not post on who has "dug deeper".

Also, the report contained 17 findings, specifically enumerated in the report. The title of the article you posted did not refer to a single one of those. I wonder why.

Again, I will wait fir Gowdy's. I am more concerned with an AWOL president and a State Dept weeding through documents. My husband, a liberal, said the report did not exonorate anyone, in fact, it was clear that not enough security was provided, there was much confusion,etc. i suggest you read the recent book tgat came out. Those men were there

The men who were there testified for the committee.

Yes, I'm listening to one of them now. He's saying he told Rogers three times they were delayed and it cost Stevens his life. Rogers, for some reason, has chosen to ignore that testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1). This was not Gowdy's report. I'll wait for that
2) It does no such thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/22/leading-republican-wants-senate-to-join-house-probe-benghazi-attack/?intcmp=latestnews

In fact, it says the WH twisted things and stuck to talking points about the video, etc

I suggest you read the article I posted above, which digs deeper into the report. Left media is already attacking FOx, which tells me Fox is clearly onto something

Uh, it's only 37 pages. If you haven't read it you should not post on who has "dug deeper".

Also, the report contained 17 findings, specifically enumerated in the report. The title of the article you posted did not refer to a single one of those. I wonder why.

Again, I will wait fir Gowdy's. I am more concerned with an AWOL president and a State Dept weeding through documents. My husband, a liberal, said the report did not exonorate anyone, in fact, it was clear that not enough security was provided, there was much confusion,etc. i suggest you read the recent book tgat came out. Those men were there

The men who were there testified for the committee.

Yes, I'm listening to one of them now. He's saying he told Rogers three times they were delayed and it cost Stevens his life. Rogers, for some reason, has chosen to ignore that testimony.

Maybe he's a Democrat plant. Or maybe, one guy in the middle of a melee does not know everything that went on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1). This was not Gowdy's report. I'll wait for that
2) It does no such thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/22/leading-republican-wants-senate-to-join-house-probe-benghazi-attack/?intcmp=latestnews

In fact, it says the WH twisted things and stuck to talking points about the video, etc

I suggest you read the article I posted above, which digs deeper into the report. Left media is already attacking FOx, which tells me Fox is clearly onto something

Uh, it's only 37 pages. If you haven't read it you should not post on who has "dug deeper".

Also, the report contained 17 findings, specifically enumerated in the report. The title of the article you posted did not refer to a single one of those. I wonder why.

Again, I will wait fir Gowdy's. I am more concerned with an AWOL president and a State Dept weeding through documents. My husband, a liberal, said the report did not exonorate anyone, in fact, it was clear that not enough security was provided, there was much confusion,etc. i suggest you read the recent book tgat came out. Those men were there

The men who were there testified for the committee.

Yes, I'm listening to one of them now. He's saying he told Rogers three times they were delayed and it cost Stevens his life. Rogers, for some reason, has chosen to ignore that testimony.

Maybe he's a Democrat plant. Or maybe, one guy in the middle of a melee does not know everything that went on.

Chris Paronto? Um. No.

[Anonymous]

I think the "Alpha House" character played by Janel Moloney (Donna from West Wing) absolutely nailed the Republican obsession with Benghazi.

My permanent select committee to investigate Benghazi is the only way to embed the scandal into our politics. Like Watergate, Benghazi could become synonymous with political disgrace.
All future Democratic scandals could end in "ghazi." IRS-ghazi, for instance. Or gay-ghazi or Penta-ghazi. What we're talking about is our children and our grandchildren and their right to get to the bottom of Benghazi just as we did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the "Alpha House" character played by Janel Moloney (Donna from West Wing) absolutely nailed the Republican obsession with Benghazi.

My permanent select committee to investigate Benghazi is the only way to embed the scandal into our politics. Like Watergate, Benghazi could become synonymous with political disgrace.
All future Democratic scandals could end in "ghazi." IRS-ghazi, for instance. Or gay-ghazi or Penta-ghazi. What we're talking about is our children and our grandchildren and their right to get to the bottom of Benghazi just as we did.

Read Paronto's account. He was there. The pWest Wing actors? Not so much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1). This was not Gowdy's report. I'll wait for that
2) It does no such thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/22/leading-republican-wants-senate-to-join-house-probe-benghazi-attack/?intcmp=latestnews

In fact, it says the WH twisted things and stuck to talking points about the video, etc

I suggest you read the article I posted above, which digs deeper into the report. Left media is already attacking FOx, which tells me Fox is clearly onto something

Uh, it's only 37 pages. If you haven't read it you should not post on who has "dug deeper".

Also, the report contained 17 findings, specifically enumerated in the report. The title of the article you posted did not refer to a single one of those. I wonder why.

Again, I will wait fir Gowdy's. I am more concerned with an AWOL president and a State Dept weeding through documents. My husband, a liberal, said the report did not exonorate anyone, in fact, it was clear that not enough security was provided, there was much confusion,etc. i suggest you read the recent book tgat came out. Those men were there

The men who were there testified for the committee.

Yes, I'm listening to one of them now. He's saying he told Rogers three times they were delayed and it cost Stevens his life. Rogers, for some reason, has chosen to ignore that testimony.

Maybe he's a Democrat plant. Or maybe, one guy in the middle of a melee does not know everything that went on.

Chris Paronto? Um. No.

Rogers, you moron. Rogers was the subject of the last sentence. And it was sarcasm anyway.

[Anonymous]

Rogers, you moron. Rogers was the subject of the last sentence. And it was sarcasm anyway

Rogers actually does have a conflict of interest. He should have recused himself.