Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,685
63,186
So. Md.
#1
Alright, what are the excuses going to be? This report is from a Republican led committee. They tried desperately to find a scandal and they can't. They did find that the State Department did not provide adequate security to their facility (that was never denied) and the CIA should have depended more on eye witnesses. As I have pointed out all along, the WH depended on the CIA for their info in the days immediately afterward and Susan Rice repeated those talking points from the CIA NOT political operatives.

Is any of this true? The House Select Intelligence Committee—controlled by Republicans—has been investigating the Benghazi attacks in minute detail for two years. Today, with the midterm elections safely past, they issued their findings. Their exoneration of the White House was sweeping and nearly absolute. So sweeping that I want to quote directly from the report's summary, rather than paraphrasing it. Here it is:
  • The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi....Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support....
  • Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.
  • Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al Qa'ida, participated in the attacks....
  • Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate....There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)....
  • Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for—and which were used for Ambassador Rice's public appearances—was flawed....
  • Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.
Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal | Mother Jones

You that [MENTION=1254]kmiller1610[/MENTION] ? The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)....
 
Likes: 9 people
Jul 2011
34,251
2,609
Tennessee
#2
they knowing lied

---------------

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate....There was no protest.
 
Likes: 4 people
Dec 2010
36,825
28,615
Virginia
#3
Alright, what are the excuses going to be? This report is from a Republican led committee. They tried desperately to find a scandal and they can't. They did find that the State Department did not provide adequate security to their facility (that was never denied) and the CIA should have depended more on eye witnesses. As I have pointed out all along, the WH depended on the CIA for their info in the days immediately afterward and Susan Rice repeated those talking points from the CIA NOT political operatives.

Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal | Mother Jones

You that [MENTION=1254]kmiller1610[/MENTION] ? The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)....
Expect this story will quietly die because it doesn't fit the right wing narrative.
 
Likes: 4 people
Dec 2010
36,825
28,615
Virginia
#4
they knowing lied

---------------

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate....There was no protest.
Nope. You can try to spin this however you want but the facts remain facts. No evidence of willful deception was uncovered.
 
Likes: 4 people

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,685
63,186
So. Md.
#5
they knowing lied

---------------

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate....There was no protest.
Yes, the intel community gave the administration bad info. But no one lied about it. They screwed up, but they didn't lie.

You took that out of context to make your point, btw. Don't think I didn't notice that.
 
Likes: 2 people

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,139
6,275
#6
Babba,

I'll see how this book I am reading (Stonewalled) leads me. This is the book folks have claimed is a right wing sop. So far half the stories are about Republican scandals. However, the author's basic premise is that the press and corporations have become intertwined in common interests and are basically restricting what the public sees to reflect their own interests and biases.

Since this is exactly what I have been claiming,a collusion between the press and the White House, I will be interested in seeing her evidence. To me, that collusion has always been the scandal. If the press has as much power to destroy and cover up as I suspect it has had for quite sometime, I doubt any congressional committee is going to call it a scandal.

And they would be wrong. It's a really big scandal, it's just not solely the White House's scandal.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,685
63,186
So. Md.
#7
Babba,

I'll see how this book I am reading (Stonewalled) leads me. This is the book folks have claimed is a right wing sop. So far half the stories are about Republican scandals. However, the author's basic premise is that the press and corporations have become intertwined in common interests and are basically restricting what the public sees to reflect their own interests and biases.

Since this is exactly what I have been claiming,a collusion between the press and the White House, I will be interested in seeing her evidence. To me, that collusion has always been the scandal. If the press has as much power to destroy and cover up as I suspect it has had for quite sometime, I doubt any congressional committee is going to call it a scandal.

And they would be wrong. It's a really big scandal, it's just not solely the White House's scandal.
You insisted that what Susan Rice said on the Sunday shows was talking points from the WH and NOT the CIA. I told you the CIA didn't change their assessment until AFTER the Sunday shows and this committee confirms my assessment and discounts yours.

I honestly couldn't care less what Sharyl Attkisson has to say about anything. She has been discredited and I can't believe you'd depend on her for anything.

I agree that our news media has been failing us. But it's not that they favor one party or the other. They do tend to report favorably on whatever administration is in the WH because they fear losing access even though that means all they offer is he said/she said faux journalism.



Your problem kmiller is that you come to a conclusion before you investigate something and try to prove your conclusion. You do it with everything you approach.
 
Likes: 4 people
Jul 2011
34,251
2,609
Tennessee
#8
Nope. You can try to spin this however you want but the facts remain facts. No evidence of willful deception was uncovered.
Yes, the intel community gave the administration bad info. But no one lied about it. They screwed up, but they didn't lie.

You took that out of context to make your point, btw. Don't think I didn't notice that.
who controls the narrative put out by the CIA? the WH!!
 
Likes: 1 person
May 2012
65,146
12,434
By the wall
#10
Nope. You can try to spin this however you want but the facts remain facts. No evidence of willful deception was uncovered.
Yea, so when you get around to finding willful evidence from Bush and the Iraq War you let us know ok?

My God, the people on the left are hypocrites, this is the exact...EXACT...same scenario you were blaming Bush for. He also relied on this very same CIA agency for information yet somehow that was wrong.

pathetic man...just pathetic.
 
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions