House Intelligence Committee Report on Benghazi Exonerates Clinton, Administration

[Anonymous]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-report-cia-military-acted-properly-in-benghazi-attacks-1416616698
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/benghazi-house-intelligence-committee-myths-113107.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2014/11/house_intel_panel_debunks_many_benghazi_theories


Most notably, no stand down order, no intelligence failure that allowed the attacks to occur, no deception as to the cause of the attack only that there was conflicting intelligence which led to conflicting statements. I'm sure Fox will attempt to dissemble on this as much as possible, but the fact that the report produced in August was dumped on a Friday night, weeks after the election, says it all.

If this was a Republican Administration, there would be an investigation as to why the release of this report was delayed. Instead we will pay for yet another Congressional inquiry into the same incident, and Ted Stevens will once again be made the unwilling poster boy for the effort.

[Anonymous]

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

[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

And it starts...

[jsteele]

It's obvious that the House committee wanted to bury this report because they released it while DCUM was down.

[Anonymous]

I don't think our rabid right-wing friends are going to let the truth interfere with their narrative.

[Anonymous]

Go read the report. It does not "exonerate" Clinton or the administration. It "explains away" choices the administration made and does not address State Dept in any depth.

[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

Yeah, "left" media like the Wall Street Journal. Remind me, who owns that?

The report specifically says they did not "twist" things but that they had conflicting intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go read the report. It does not "exonerate" Clinton or the administration. It "explains away" choices the administration made and does not address State Dept in any depth.

Already read it. You are full of it.

[Anonymous]

There is still a lot of money to be made on this. No way the grifters let this issue died.

[Anonymous]

Already read it. You are full of it.

Then, you need to read the definition of "exonerate." Also, please tell me where it exonerates Clinton and State.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Already read it. You are full of it.

Then, you need to read the definition of "exonerate." Also, please tell me where it exonerates Clinton and State.

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.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Already read it. You are full of it.

Then, you need to read the definition of "exonerate." Also, please tell me where it exonerates Clinton and State.

The report was to investigate CIA. You are correct. It points fingers at the WH

Gowdy's report will be more in-depth

This remonds me of CNN's headline after the massacre of the Rabbi's. They ran with "Israeli Government kills two Palestinians". Hardly the whole story, but it fit their narrative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Already read it. You are full of it.

Then, you need to read the definition of "exonerate." Also, please tell me where it exonerates Clinton and State.

The report was to investigate CIA. You are correct. It points fingers at the WH

Gowdy's report will be more in-depth

This remonds me of CNN's headline after the massacre of the Rabbi's. They ran with "Israeli Government kills two Palestinians". Hardly the whole story, but it fit their narrative

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You could at least read the Wall Street Journal link. That is also owned by Rupert Murdoch but they don't pander to conspiracy theorists.

[Anonymous]

You could at least read the Wall Street Journal link. That is also owned by Rupert Murdoch but they don't pander to conspiracy theorists.

Go to the primary source: the report. You are making assumptions.

[Anonymous]

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."