House Intelligence Committee Report on Benghazi Exonerates Clinton, Administration

[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.

Not all. And their idea of stand down and the official definition of stand down is different. When you are raring to go and can't because you are sent somewhere else or aren't allowed to board the plane?

Again, read their full accounts in the book

[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

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

Lol. We discuss the news because we learn from each other. My husband is a thinking liberal - and saw right through the BS.

[Anonymous]

The official report is exactly the same as the previously leaked unofficial report, which is pretty much what we (who are not conspiracy theorists) already knew: there was some confusion when it happened, for several reasons the security was light, etc.

[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

Are you now saying that it's not that there was a conspiracy to mislead people, but that there was too much confusion? And it's not that the Obama Administration stopped a rescue mission, but that there was not enough money in the budget for embassy security?

Because if that's what you mean by no one was exonerated then I agree with you, but that's not anything like what people having been saying when they scream BENGHAZI.

[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

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

Lol. We discuss the news because we learn from each other. My husband is a thinking liberal - and saw right through the BS.

Oh he saw through the bs. Well I stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

BENGHAZI !!!

[Anonymous]

Again, read their full accounts in the book

Why would their accounts in a book differ from their testimony in a Congressional committee investigation? Are they committing perjury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, read their full accounts in the book

Why would their accounts in a book differ from their testimony in a Congressional committee investigation? Are they committing perjury?

What I want to know is anyone thinks that Gowdy's committee will find something new that the last Republican committee did not? And this one has access to all the classified intelligence that can't be discussed in Gowdy's.

Gowdy's committee is just a gift from the House to the Tea Party. They get their own inquisition so they'll stop whining that Issa's committee and Rogers' committee didn't "get to the truth", which of course they know because someone is selling a book about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, read their full accounts in the book

Why would their accounts in a book differ from their testimony in a Congressional committee investigation? Are they committing perjury?

Funny how you'll say one thing when testifying under oath and another when scooping up the easy cash available to those who are willing to pander to gullible racists.

[Anonymous]

Funny how you'll say one thing when testifying under oath and another when scooping up the easy cash available to those who are willing to pander to gullible racists.

Why is it racist to think Benghazi is a problem? Because Rice and Obama lied? That's not racist, lying is not limited to any race.

[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

Are you now saying that it's not that there was a conspiracy to mislead people, but that there was too much confusion? And it's not that the Obama Administration stopped a rescue mission, but that there was not enough money in the budget for embassy security?

Because if that's what you mean by no one was exonerated then I agree with you, but that's not anything like what people having been saying when they scream BENGHAZI.

According to the report, there was initial confusion, but if you listen to eyewitnesses, NOT due to Smith or others in the immediate area. This eas confirmed in the reort, ie, that they knew it was a terrorist attack, and that Al Qaeda was involved - they knew that from the get go. The repoert says that the WH for sone reason, latched onto the talking points about the video and went with that, despite the other side of the coin. This report was done to check the CIA's role. What it did was tell me what I already suspected: that the WH and State Dept spun information to the media and pinned the blame for their spin on the CIA, when, in fact, the CiA did a fine job.

Again, I trust the men on the ground. I know Rangers and Seals, and they dion't run away, the run towards. I've heard first-hand accounts from the men that were there, and I can tell you, they knew this was not a spontaneous thing. Why the WH would be so stupid as to think all people would buy that, is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, read their full accounts in the book

Why would their accounts in a book differ from their testimony in a Congressional committee investigation? Are they committing perjury?

What I want to know is anyone thinks that Gowdy's committee will find something new that the last Republican committee did not? And this one has access to all the classified intelligence that can't be discussed in Gowdy's.

Gowdy's committee is just a gift from the House to the Tea Party. They get their own inquisition so they'll stop whining that Issa's committee and Rogers' committee didn't "get to the truth", which of course they know because someone is selling a book about it.

There's a reason why Gowdy was chosen. He digs deep and accepts no BS. And he's not an easy mark for intimidation

[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

Are you now saying that it's not that there was a conspiracy to mislead people, but that there was too much confusion? And it's not that the Obama Administration stopped a rescue mission, but that there was not enough money in the budget for embassy security?

Because if that's what you mean by no one was exonerated then I agree with you, but that's not anything like what people having been saying when they scream BENGHAZI.

According to the report, there was initial confusion, but if you listen to eyewitnesses, NOT due to Smith or others in the immediate area. This eas confirmed in the reort, ie, that they knew it was a terrorist attack, and that Al Qaeda was involved - they knew that from the get go. The repoert says that the WH for sone reason, latched onto the talking points about the video and went with that, despite the other side of the coin. This report was done to check the CIA's role. What it did was tell me what I already suspected: that the WH and State Dept spun information to the media and pinned the blame for their spin on the CIA, when, in fact, the CiA did a fine job.

Again, I trust the men on the ground. I know Rangers and Seals, and they dion't run away, the run towards. I've heard first-hand accounts from the men that were there, and I can tell you, they knew this was not a spontaneous thing. Why the WH would be so stupid as to think all people would buy that, is beyond me.

You are just making things up now. The report clearly states that there were conflicting reports but it was the *CIA's* assessment that it evolved out of protests, and furthermore that the *CIA* did not change its assessment until well after Susan Rice made her appearances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, read their full accounts in the book

Why would their accounts in a book differ from their testimony in a Congressional committee investigation? Are they committing perjury?

What I want to know is anyone thinks that Gowdy's committee will find something new that the last Republican committee did not? And this one has access to all the classified intelligence that can't be discussed in Gowdy's.

Gowdy's committee is just a gift from the House to the Tea Party. They get their own inquisition so they'll stop whining that Issa's committee and Rogers' committee didn't "get to the truth", which of course they know because someone is selling a book about it.

There's a reason why Gowdy was chosen. He digs deep and accepts no BS. And he's not an easy mark for intimidation

Really, because I heard Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers are both known for being complete pushovers who leave most stones unturned. So I guess it really is important to have another crack at this.

[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

Are you now saying that it's not that there was a conspiracy to mislead people, but that there was too much confusion? And it's not that the Obama Administration stopped a rescue mission, but that there was not enough money in the budget for embassy security?

Because if that's what you mean by no one was exonerated then I agree with you, but that's not anything like what people having been saying when they scream BENGHAZI.

According to the report, there was initial confusion, but if you listen to eyewitnesses, NOT due to Smith or others in the immediate area. This eas confirmed in the reort, ie, that they knew it was a terrorist attack, and that Al Qaeda was involved - they knew that from the get go. The repoert says that the WH for sone reason, latched onto the talking points about the video and went with that, despite the other side of the coin. This report was done to check the CIA's role. What it did was tell me what I already suspected: that the WH and State Dept spun information to the media and pinned the blame for their spin on the CIA, when, in fact, the CiA did a fine job.

Again, I trust the men on the ground. I know Rangers and Seals, and they dion't run away, the run towards. I've heard first-hand accounts from the men that were there, and I can tell you, they knew this was not a spontaneous thing. Why the WH would be so stupid as to think all people would buy that, is beyond me.

1. You obviously did not read the report, because then you would know that it was the intelligence agencies themselves who were having difficulty resolving these accounts. And of course if you had any common sense you would know that there were no Rangers or Seals at the Mission in the hours preceding the attack.