House panel: No administration wrongdoing in Benghazi attack

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

So, they are going ahead with yet another committee to look at this issue.

I love the pic its pretty awesome Propaganda, really is..

But here is the difference between those attacks and Benghazi. After or during all of those attacks someone either claimed responsibility or we knew exactly who they were and went after them.. and if we didn't know we said we didn't until we did. Period.

We did not have a President who RE Legalized Propaganda within the USA.. And right before an election saying it wasn't Terrorism. You can say whatever you want but it was bull# propaganda. But I guess if you of the ilk who believe Bill didn't lie when he said, "I did not have sexual relations" you will believe whatever they tell you.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Maybe the House should start another investigation, or 10 more, or 50 more. I'm sure THAT will uncover the REAL story.




(Now THAT'S sarcasm!)

I assume the "mean" comments about Republicans in this thread (and most) are from the left. Sometimes they are justified as both sides of our political system are corrupt...this time it is not. WE WERE LIED TO! Your president lied to us directly and through his "little people". Hillary included. We were told it was a YouTube video...hell, Hillary said that to the parents while their child's body was returning home.

Here is my point...when any conspiracy arises, it is usually because the American people were lied to. We get a sniff of something wrong and we consider why we are being lied to. And in this case...we WERE lied to. When our elected officials lie to us, we must investigate and sometimes over investigate when an administration like the current one uses all the powers of government to hide, lie and cheat. (Holder, Hillary, etc.) They can't be trusted...they lie...we need to know the truth.

So if you want to be pissed off simply because this time, the investigation was looking at Obama and team...grow up! We investigated JFK, 9/11, etc. Benghazi is now added to that group. Why? Because the president and his directed minions lied. We have a government that is COMFORTABLE lying to us. And in my opinion...any US citizen that is OK with that is part of the problem. If you are so brainwashed that you just blindly support someone instead of judging them by their actions and faults...you probably shouldn't vote. This isn't a prom queen election...this is our money, our country and our lives. Judge every elected official and correct the choices when they f-up. Only this way, can we get the government we deserve. Again...left and/or right.

Lying is wrong...always. And any paid (employee) or elected official that lies should be immediately fired. That includes every politician on either side. But then again...there are those on both sides that will blindly support "their candidate" regardless. Hell...they could piss on your cereal and you would vote for them. Truth is...and I'm sure most here would agree...YOU ARE THE PROBLEM and YOU get the government YOU deserve. We just happen to be stuck with your decisions.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
I thought given the past two years of this board being flooded daily with Benghazi posts, that surely, a breakthrough like this would have at least been given some attention. This is, after all the conclusion of two years of GOP outcry and two years of Darrell Issa grandstanding on the "scandal."

That's because this board is flooded with right-wing scare-mongers who aren't conspiracy theorists, but are actually THE conspiracy.

The government investigating the government. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.

a reply to: Flatfish
The original story was the attack was spontaneous, stemming from protest, however the intercepted cell phone calls made from the attackers using phones stolen from the embassy tell a different story. It was a planned co-ordinated attack. Grimpachi may be right in that the confusion created by protests of the video gave this group the opportunity to attack, but that's not the same thing.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Chronogoblin

You missed the issue entirely. The committee did not say "A video is whut dunnit," that wasn't even the WH position, only that in the immediate aftermath, were talking hours here, the WH made a public statement that included 'the potential this attack was precipitated by an anti-Muslim video.'

And you forget the fact that the attack was supposedly an eruption that occurred during a protest against an anti-Islamist video on Youtube, and that argument was made by the Administration for days after they knew there had been no protest whatsoever leading up to the attack.

Now, the attack might have been at least partially precipitated by the YouTube vid, I can agree (and always have) about that. However, lying about the circumstances is misleading the public.

Both sides, at least sometimes, mislead the public on a variety of topics. Usually this is for political reasons. It is this that got the Republican's dander up because the lie followed through until after the election. They were robbed of the ability to make the argument that the Administration had also misled the public on the topic of terrorism's supposed decline ( "Al-Queda on the run," etc.) So they made of it what they could.

Today it's obvious that the Obama Administration's foreign policy and specifically it's policy concerning Islam is a pipe dream and a considerably deadly one at that. His policies in that area (and several others, I might add,) have completely collapsed and lie in tatters. At the time around the attack that incompetency wasn't so obvious.

The Bengazi attack appeared at the time to repudiate Obama's claims about his successes in the area of terrorism so Obama couldn't allow the opposition to make that argument in the Fall immediately preceding a presidential election.

Regarding other wrongdoing assertions made by Issa and Fox News, et al., these began as responses to utterly false pronunciations made by the Democrats about the Republican candidate (Harry Reid, for example, stated mutiple times without a whit of evidence that Romney hadn't paid a dime in taxes in ten years. Politifact rates that lie "pants on fire.")

The Republicans tried to respond to the Democrat's strategy of pure lies by taking that page for their own. How else does one respond to outright lies during a campaign, if the truth (Romney paid a smaller percentage of taxes than the average taxpayer - though some of his income was not produced in the US and was subject to other countries' tax bills) doesn't help you win? Winning is, after all, the only goal of a presidential campaign.

The rest of the claims have to do with political posturing and winning votes. I don't think any thinking person actually believes the Obama Administration was culpable or negligent in the attacks or deaths.

Also, thinking people should think about that claim concerning the lack of security in Bengazi being due to cuts in the budget. Lots of money was being spent on other embassies and security in other locations. If you look at it, it's reasonable that little was spent on security there. It wasn't exactly supposed to be a "safe" place to begin with and using the term "Embassy" for the location is really pushing it since the Ambassador wasn't stationed there.

Ambassador Stevens was known as a risk-taker. He felt that certain risks had to be taken. IMO, it caught up with him, though I certainly don't mean to blame him.

That said, the idea that there was "no wrongdoing," while it almost certainly applies to the attack itself, does not cover the dissemination of known untruths by the Administration in the week or so after the attack.

Harte