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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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?

Again, read their full accounts in the book

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.

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

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.

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.