Anonymous wrote:

We heard you say that Ambassador Rice lied to the UN. Untrue. The consensus on what happened only formed within the intelligence community two days later, when they got video

No. That was not the consensus. No one ever really explained why they went with that--wishful thinking? Sure, it was presented, but it was not the consensus.

OMG are you, or are you not, ever going to read the report? Is there some internet proxy server for conservatives which blocks evidence that contradicts your belief system?

We heard you say that Ambassador Rice lied to the UN. Untrue. The consensus on what happened only formed within the intelligence community two days later, when they got video

No. That was not the consensus. No one ever really explained why they went with that--wishful thinking? Sure, it was presented, but it was not the consensus.

We heard conservative posters say that they deliberately spun the protest story for the benefit in the 2012 elections. Untrue

Delusional. Just look at he debate with Romney. Then, look at the 60 Minutes interview that was not released before the election. The one where he admitted to not calling it a terrorist attack.

Anonymous wrote:

We heard conservative posters say that they deliberately spun the protest story for the benefit in the 2012 elections. Untrue. Documented by the Republican led committee.
We heard you say that Ambassador Rice lied to the UN. Untrue. The consensus on what happened only formed within the intelligence community two days later, when they got video.
We heard you say there was a stand down order. There was no stand down order.
We heard you say that they were denied available air support. They were not denied air support. Point blank they covered this.
We heard that they were shipping arms to Syria. They were not shipping arms to Syria.
We heard that we had intelligence that could have prevented the tragedy. We did not.
We heard that we had deliberately whitewashed the role of Al Qaeda. We did not. This point was evaluated in detail in the report.
We were told that witnesses were intimidated, polygraphed, and kept from Congress. Absolutely false, according to the committee.

Maybe you are not familiar with the term "shellacking", but that is what happened to the conservative Benghazi conspiracy. You are left with a crisis in which not everything was handled perfectly. That's it.

No. The report made excuses--it did not exonerate them. Except, perhaps, the shipping arms to Syria--which we still don't really know.

I just listed the major claims of the Benghazi conspiracy crowd. Each of these was specifically refuted in the report. How much more specific does it get than comments like: "

Finding #4: The CIA was not collecting and shipping arms from Libya to Syria

or

Finding #15: The CIA did not intimidate or prevent any officer from speaking to Congress or otherwise telling his story

It doesn't get any more point blank specific than that. This report is a disaster for the Benghazi conspiracy theorists. I know why Clinton's political enemies are fuming, but tough nuts, you guys chaired the committee and you will never have another investigation with the same access to the classified information necessary to know the truth.

You do know that Mike Rogers wife is affiliated with the company that controlled the contractors? Not publicized, but true. Look it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thin the Republic as need to do an investigation of the investigation that lead to this report that found no errors.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Or in this particular case, who will go wing nut on the wing nuts?

Apparently Lindsey Graham is ready to lead the charge. http://nypost.com/2014/11/23/gop-looking-to-discredit-benghazi-report-that-cleared-obama/

WASHINGTON – Two days after a Republican-led committee found no intelligence failure or cover-up in the deadly Benghazi ?embassy ?attacks,? ?Republicans are moving to discredit the two-year investigation. "I think the report is full of crap,” said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

The report by the House Intelligence Committee?,? dumped Friday?,? concluded there was no wrongdoing by the Obama administration and no one intentionally misled the American people ....

The panel is chaired by vocal President Obama critic Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ... concluded “there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks,” in the report that had little fanfare the Friday before Thanksgiving.

We heard conservative posters say that they deliberately spun the protest story for the benefit in the 2012 elections. Untrue. Documented by the Republican led committee.
We heard you say that Ambassador Rice lied to the UN. Untrue. The consensus on what happened only formed within the intelligence community two days later, when they got video.
We heard you say there was a stand down order. There was no stand down order.
We heard you say that they were denied available air support. They were not denied air support. Point blank they covered this.
We heard that they were shipping arms to Syria. They were not shipping arms to Syria.
We heard that we had intelligence that could have prevented the tragedy. We did not.
We heard that we had deliberately whitewashed the role of Al Qaeda. We did not. This point was evaluated in detail in the report.
We were told that witnesses were intimidated, polygraphed, and kept from Congress. Absolutely false, according to the committee.

Maybe you are not familiar with the term "shellacking", but that is what happened to the conservative Benghazi conspiracy. You are left with a crisis in which not everything was handled perfectly. That's it.

No. The report made excuses--it did not exonerate them. Except, perhaps, the shipping arms to Syria--which we still don't really know.

Anonymous wrote:Read the report. They found plenty of errors. No one was exonerated. They just didn't accuse anyone--there is a difference.

Imagine that, a crisis that was not error free.

We remember the many accusations that y'all made on this board. And they got knocked down one after the other.

We heard conservative posters say that they deliberately spun the protest story for the benefit in the 2012 elections. Untrue. Documented by the Republican led committee.
We heard you say that Ambassador Rice lied to the UN. Untrue. The consensus on what happened only formed within the intelligence community two days later, when they got video.
We heard you say there was a stand down order. There was no stand down order.
We heard you say that they were denied available air support. They were not denied air support. Point blank they covered this.
We heard that they were shipping arms to Syria. They were not shipping arms to Syria.
We heard that we had intelligence that could have prevented the tragedy. We did not.
We heard that we had deliberately whitewashed the role of Al Qaeda. We did not. This point was evaluated in detail in the report.
We were told that witnesses were intimidated, polygraphed, and kept from Congress. Absolutely false, according to the committee.

Maybe you are not familiar with the term "shellacking", but that is what happened to the conservative Benghazi conspiracy. You are left with a crisis in which not everything was handled perfectly. That's it.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't say that--most of those under Bush were suicide bombings--not orchestrated attacks. Also, read the report--there were plenty of warnings that were ignored in Benghazi--by State, not CIA.

Excuse me, but when is a suicide bombing NOT an orchestrated attack?

An apology from the republicans is warranted. I won't hold my breath.

Who was exonerated?

Anonymous wrote:Read the report. They found plenty of errors. No one was exonerated. They just didn't accuse anyone--there is a difference.

I'm sorry but you are moving the goal posts to another continent if you think no one was exonerated. Of course there were plenty of errors made, but all of the wingnut bullshit accusations are shown to be completely false.

Read the report. They found plenty of errors. No one was exonerated. They just didn't accuse anyone--there is a difference.

Anonymous wrote:I thin the Republic as need to do an investigation of the investigation that lead to this report that found no errors.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Or in this particular case, who will go wing nut on the wing nuts?

I thin the Republic as need to do an investigation of the investigation that lead to this report that found no errors.