Is it true that more Congressional man hours were spent on Benghazi than 9/11?

[Anonymous]

The Germans and Brits each warned the Bush Administration that "Curveball" was full of shit. Bottom line, there was no evidence to support the story about Iraq sourcing enriched uranium from Niger. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby et al. weren't interested in real intelligence that undercut their goal of deposing Saddam. Judith Miller was all too happy to play her part. This is the reason these "patriots" decided to out Valerie Plame and put her assets in the crosshairs. Treasonous and disgusting. Moreover, anyone with a ny knowledge of the region should have been able to predict disbanding the Baathist-led Iraqi army would further destabilize the region and further inflame sectarian conflict. In hindsight, it would have been really, really helpful if Condoleeza had learned about the differences between Sunnis and Shiites (and their respective state sponsors) while at Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Blame the Obama administration for lying in the first place and continuing that lie with the families of the fallen.

Non sequitur. All that happened was confused messaging during the fog of war, not overt, intentional lying (and to date there has been zero evidence of overt, intentional lying).

It is not at all a reasonable response to then take the next two years diverting Congress away from important work that needs to be done, to waste millions of dollars on pointless, useless, fruitless investigations, and to have this dominate the 24 hour news cycle in conservative media for TWO FUCKING YEARS STRAIGHT.

This was from the start, and still is, nothing but a witch hunt and manufactured outrage with zero real goal other than to drive divisive partisanship.

There were no “confused messages” due to “the fog of war.”
There were lies and more lies to cover up the first lies.
The American public was lied to as were the families of the fallen.
You all have drunk the Kool aid.
And, the Republicans do not need to drive divisive partisanship. Obama does that quite well on his own.

We were lied to about Iraq. And that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and put us 4 trillion dollars in debt. Where was our outrage then?

Enough of the lying bs. WJC believed they had WMD's. The intel said he had them. For it to be lying you have to have reports that say one thing and you say another. And by pushing this lying thing you make everyone, including those on the intel committees, look like total idiots or at the very least incompetent buffoons.

The people who "believed" did so because they had no idea that the diagrams of "mobile bioweapons labs" that Colin Powell showed in Congress, and the little vials of white powder that he held up, were completely fake. They had no idea that the supposed "yellowcake uranium from Niger" was fake. A lot of people believed because the lie had not yet been exposed.

PP

You're ignoring the facts and repeating partisan crap. Among other things Colin Powell went before the United Nations, not Congress. And your still ignoring WJC's intimate knowledge. If this was all fake against the intel...WJC's could have stood up and said...BS...but he didnt'.

Ya know what I find funny...Saddam WANTED the world to believe he had those weapons. In part because he feared Iran and believed that was a deterrent keeping them at bay. Ever read his interviews? How about things he said and did during the 90's.

Well, Saddam claimed he was packing but when his pants were pulled down it was a rolled up sock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. No other word for it. Simply disgusting.


We were attached on our shores by our own airplanes and there was warning that foreign terrorists were planning on doing it.

Yeah.... why didn’t Clinton do anything? He had a chance to take down Bin Laden....

Because life's not that simple and hindsight is 20/20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Blame the Obama administration for lying in the first place and continuing that lie with the families of the fallen.

Non sequitur. All that happened was confused messaging during the fog of war, not overt, intentional lying (and to date there has been zero evidence of overt, intentional lying).

It is not at all a reasonable response to then take the next two years diverting Congress away from important work that needs to be done, to waste millions of dollars on pointless, useless, fruitless investigations, and to have this dominate the 24 hour news cycle in conservative media for TWO FUCKING YEARS STRAIGHT.

This was from the start, and still is, nothing but a witch hunt and manufactured outrage with zero real goal other than to drive divisive partisanship.

There were no “confused messages” due to “the fog of war.”
There were lies and more lies to cover up the first lies.
The American public was lied to as were the families of the fallen.
You all have drunk the Kool aid.
And, the Republicans do not need to drive divisive partisanship. Obama does that quite well on his own.

We were lied to about Iraq. And that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and put us 4 trillion dollars in debt. Where was our outrage then?

Enough of the lying bs. WJC believed they had WMD's. The intel said he had them. For it to be lying you have to have reports that say one thing and you say another. And by pushing this lying thing you make everyone, including those on the intel committees, look like total idiots or at the very least incompetent buffoons.

The people who "believed" did so because they had no idea that the diagrams of "mobile bioweapons labs" that Colin Powell showed in Congress, and the little vials of white powder that he held up, were completely fake. They had no idea that the supposed "yellowcake uranium from Niger" was fake. A lot of people believed because the lie had not yet been exposed.

PP

You're ignoring the facts and repeating partisan crap. Among other things Colin Powell went before the United Nations, not Congress. And your still ignoring WJC's intimate knowledge. If this was all fake against the intel...WJC's could have stood up and said...BS...but he didnt'.

Ya know what I find funny...Saddam WANTED the world to believe he had those weapons. In part because he feared Iran and believed that was a deterrent keeping them at bay. Ever read his interviews? How about things he said and did during the 90's.

Well, Saddam claimed he was packing but when his pants were pulled down it was a rolled up sock.

None of what you said changes the fact that the Bush Administration lied to all of us, lied to Congress, lied to the UN, and it cost us 4 trillion and it cost hundreds of thousands of lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Blame the Obama administration for lying in the first place and continuing that lie with the families of the fallen.

Non sequitur. All that happened was confused messaging during the fog of war, not overt, intentional lying (and to date there has been zero evidence of overt, intentional lying).

It is not at all a reasonable response to then take the next two years diverting Congress away from important work that needs to be done, to waste millions of dollars on pointless, useless, fruitless investigations, and to have this dominate the 24 hour news cycle in conservative media for TWO FUCKING YEARS STRAIGHT.

This was from the start, and still is, nothing but a witch hunt and manufactured outrage with zero real goal other than to drive divisive partisanship.

There were no “confused messages” due to “the fog of war.”
There were lies and more lies to cover up the first lies.
The American public was lied to as were the families of the fallen.
You all have drunk the Kool aid.
And, the Republicans do not need to drive divisive partisanship. Obama does that quite well on his own.

We were lied to about Iraq. And that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and put us 4 trillion dollars in debt. Where was our outrage then?

Enough of the lying bs. WJC believed they had WMD's. The intel said he had them. For it to be lying you have to have reports that say one thing and you say another. And by pushing this lying thing you make everyone, including those on the intel committees, look like total idiots or at the very least incompetent buffoons.

The people who "believed" did so because they had no idea that the diagrams of "mobile bioweapons labs" that Colin Powell showed in Congress, and the little vials of white powder that he held up, were completely fake. They had no idea that the supposed "yellowcake uranium from Niger" was fake. A lot of people believed because the lie had not yet been exposed.

PP

You're ignoring the facts and repeating partisan crap. Among other things Colin Powell went before the United Nations, not Congress. And your still ignoring WJC's intimate knowledge. If this was all fake against the intel...WJC's could have stood up and said...BS...but he didnt'.

Ya know what I find funny...Saddam WANTED the world to believe he had those weapons. In part because he feared Iran and believed that was a deterrent keeping them at bay. Ever read his interviews? How about things he said and did during the 90's.

Well, Saddam claimed he was packing but when his pants were pulled down it was a rolled up sock.

None of what you said changes the fact that the Bush Administration lied to all of us, lied to Congress, lied to the UN, and it cost us 4 trillion and it cost hundreds of thousands of lies.

The facts prove you wrong and you ignore...that makes you fos. You can peddle that to the ignorant and scent deficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. No other word for it. Simply disgusting.


We were attached on our shores by our own airplanes and there was warning that foreign terrorists were planning on doing it.

Yeah.... why didn’t Clinton do anything? He had a chance to take down Bin Laden....

Because life's not that simple and hindsight is 20/20.

Because Americans do not kill people for something they might do -- except for President Bush in Iraq when we attacked a country for something they might do with something they might have.

[Anonymous]

BOTTOM LINE: It is horrible that we, citizens of the United States, have allowed more Congressional hearing on Benghazi than were held on the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11. Period. End of discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BOTTOM LINE: It is horrible that we, citizens of the United States, have allowed more Congressional hearing on Benghazi than were held on the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11. Period. End of discussion.

Horrible and unconscionable and people like Trey Gowdy should be deeply ashamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BOTTOM LINE: It is horrible that we, citizens of the United States, have allowed more Congressional hearing on Benghazi than were held on the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11. Period. End of discussion.

More time and money was spent on 9/11 by far. No comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOTTOM LINE: It is horrible that we, citizens of the United States, have allowed more Congressional hearing on Benghazi than were held on the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11. Period. End of discussion.

More time and money was spent on 9/11 by far. No comparison.

ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. NP here and your statement that the investigations and hearings into the failures that led to 9/11 as being more costly and time consuming are 100%, absolutely untrue. You are either lying or uninformed. The hearings and continued investigation into Benghazi has been the most time consuming and expensive in the history of the United States Congress.

[Anonymous]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

Oh, what a tangled web we weave............

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

Oh, what a tangled web we weave............

Isnt it funny how the leaks go to Daily Beast and McClatchy now? Ever since the big NYT story that was completely wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

Oh, what a tangled web we weave............

Isnt it funny how the leaks go to Daily Beast and McClatchy now? Ever since the big NYT story that was completely wrong.

Gee that story says the information was not labeled classified. Hardly Hillary's mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

Oh, what a tangled web we weave............

Isnt it funny how the leaks go to Daily Beast and McClatchy now? Ever since the big NYT story that was completely wrong.

Gee that story says the information was not labeled classified. Hardly Hillary's mistake.

So, we are talking TOP SECRET information.
If she DID know that it was top secret, she has violated the law.
If she didn’t know it was top secret, how can she be trusted with the secrets of our country?
Either was it is looking pretty bad for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOTTOM LINE: It is horrible that we, citizens of the United States, have allowed more Congressional hearing on Benghazi than were held on the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11. Period. End of discussion.

More time and money was spent on 9/11 by far. No comparison.

ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. NP here and your statement that the investigations and hearings into the failures that led to 9/11 as being more costly and time consuming are 100%, absolutely untrue. You are either lying or uninformed. The hearings and continued investigation into Benghazi has been the most time consuming and expensive in the history of the United States Congress.

More partisan jumping up and down. Makes me feel so good being Independent. And stop changing my words. I never said anything about failures that led to 9/11. But there was a lot of money on that and the overall investigation.

The Benghazi investigation is stupid. But who the hell is talking about Congressional costs? The conversation is about COST. And if Benghazi has hit 30 million, and I saw somewhere that Gowdy is up to 6mil, it still hasn't come close. 9/11 investigations, studies and commission cost a lot more than that. In fact no one can even come up with a total. You have money for the commission...budget was 15 million. NIST got 16 million. Then you have additional appropriations to NSA, FBI, CIA all to study the processes that led to the failure of intel. I have friends who were called in and worked a LOT of overtime directly on the research and studies related to 9/11 and funded with money designated rather than from their general budget. And there's more but I won't waste anymore of my time.

BTW...any idea what Ken Starr cost? Somewhere in the 40+ million range. A hell of a lot more than Benghazi so there goes your most costly Congressional investigation..