Reply to House Intelligence Committee Report on Benghazi Exonerates Clinton, Administration

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "House Intelligence Committee Report on Benghazi Exonerates Clinton, Administration"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics