House Intelligence Committee Report on Benghazi Exonerates Clinton, Administration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Page one. All of the key claims about Benghazi were debunked, from whether they deliberately lied about the cause, to whether there was a stand down order, to whether there was a denial of air support. You all were full of shit on this one, and the House Intelligence Committee, the committee with actual access to intelligence AND run by Republicans, said so bluntly and up front.

You must not have read the part about the "innacuracies" and the "flawed assessments."

I have read the report cover to cover. Of course there were flawed assessments. But they aren't what you want to hear. What they said was that the intelligence community provided many conflicting assessments as to the motive of the attack, whether or not there was a protest involved, and whether it was preplanned.

Specifically on whether there was a protest:

In total,analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi -- fourteen from the Open Source Center, one from CIA, two from DoD and four from NSA

[Anonymous]

Show me the part where Clinton is exonerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Show me the part where Clinton is exonerated.

Show me a crazy Benghazi claim that was not refuted by the report.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Where were the republican congressional committees then?

[Anonymous]

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

Well if your husband explains the news to you, then I guess you are a good conservative woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where were the republican congressional committees then?

Democrats didn't politicize those deaths.

[Anonymous]

That old canard does not include organized attacks that went on for hours. Also, how many American ambassadors were targeted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That old canard does not include organized attacks that went on for hours. Also, how many American ambassadors were targeted?

So in your mind, the 60 American deaths during the Bush II administration weren't worth investigating. Only attacks of a certain length? Only ambassadors? Only when it serves your political purposes?

[Anonymous]

Didn't say that--most of those under Bush were suicide bombings--not orchestrated attacks. Also, read the report--there were plenty of warnings that were ignored in Benghazi--by State, not CIA.

[Anonymous]

Also, how many were under siege like the people in Benghazi? How many Americans were killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, how many were under siege like the people in Benghazi? How many Americans were killed?

That would be 60. Is reading difficult for you?

[Anonymous]

Benghazi been Fizzled. Consider it a win that you suppressed release of this report until after the election and let it go.