Benghazi (Again)

*"A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. *Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories/ar-BBf6BYB

I admit I haven’t followed every story relating to this attack. I didn’t realize that this was the seventh congressional/state department committee report, all saying the same thing, and that the senate has an eighth report still to come. And when you read the comments at the end of the linked article, you get predictable thoughts, including,* **“You people really are stupid. Go over to FOX to get the real findings released by the panel.” * However, this was what I found on the FOX News page.

“A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. The report alleges no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria. The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled/

I’m sure this will put an end to the conspiracy theories.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/26650636.jpg
.

I wonder if anyone on here who blasted hillary and obama will change their minds in light of this.

I wonder if anyone on here who blasted hillary and obama will change their minds in light of this.

Hahahahahahahaha. Why do you you think the 7th report to say this would have any different effect than the first six? You sir, are the definition of insanity.

A leading Republican wants to expand the House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack by adding a Senate probe, as a new House Intelligence Committee report Friday concluded that the initial CIA assessment found no demonstrations prior to the assault and a primary purpose of the CIA operation in eastern Libya was to track the movement of weapons to Syria.

The report described the attack as “complex” with the attackers affiliated with Al Qaeda. It also said the initial CIA assessment concluded there were no demonstrations outside the State Department Consulate in Eastern Libya.

“Number one, Mike Morrell misled three senators,” Graham said of their November 2012 meeting on Capitol Hill, where Morell accompanied then UN Ambassador Susan Rice to explain her flawed explanation on national television five days after the attack.

“I think it’s important that for future CIA personnel to understand, that if you come to Congress and you’re asked a question and you give a deceptive answer, you tell half the story, not the entire story, you play word games, it will follow you and will be unacceptable,” Graham said.

On Friday, with little fanfare, the House Intelligence Committee released the findings of its two year, bi-partisan investigation into the terrorist attack. The 37 page report found that the first, internal CIA assessment was accurate – that no protests were involved – but then-CIA Director David Petraeus, Morell and the administration latched onto information that supported the flawed demonstration scenario.

On Saturday September 14, 2012, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes wrote in an email titled “PREP CALL with Susan,” that one of the goals for the administration’s public statements should be “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”  The House report says these conclusions were “incorrect.”

Judicial Watch, not Congress, obtained the Rhodes email as the result of a federal lawsuit.

The Obama White House did not move away from the protest explanation for the attack that killed four Americans -

The report found the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs made three “substantive” changes to the talking points that included the removal of references to Al Qaeda and swapping the word “attacks” with “demonstrations.”  It is not clear from the publicly available, and heavily redacted emails exactly who made the changes and who directed them, since the CIA public affairs office would be unlikely to make these changes unilaterally.

When Morell retired from the CIA last year, he told The Wall Street Journal he hoped to advise a presidential campaign, with anonymous sources telling the paper Morell was close to Hillary Clinton. Morell now works as a counselor at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington D.C. firm closely aligned with the former secretary of State. He is also a national security analyst for CBS News. The President of CBS News is David Rhodes, the brother of Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

An appendix filed by Democrats did not find evidence of “political motivations,” and Morell is praised for testifying “freely and openly” about the process.  Four Republicans, including chairman Mike Rogers, concluded “Mr. Morell operated beyond his role as CIA Deputy Director and inserted himself into a policy making and public affairs role….It is simply unfathomable that the White House’s policy preferences, or the concerns of the State Department senior officials, did not factor into his calculation about what was fair.  For these reasons, we believe that Mr. Morell’s testimony was at time inconsistent and incomplete.”

The House report leaves no doubt that the attack drew heavily on “those affiliated with al-Qai’da,”  including AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb), AAS (Ansar al-sharia), AQAP (Al Qaeda in Yemen), AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) as well as the Egypt based Jamal Network.  As Fox News was first to report, and the committee investigation affirms, at least two long time Al Qaeda operatives, Faraj al-Chalabi, and former Guantanamo detainee Sufian bin Qumu, were significant players in the assault.

The report also shed new light on the CIA operation in Benghazi. Morell said the CIA annex was in eastern Libya “collecting intelligence about foreign entities that were themselves collecting weapons in Libya and facilitating their passage to Syria. The Benghazi Annex was not itself collecting weapons.”

Newly declassified testimony before the House Intelligence Committee attached to the House report from the Director of National intelligence, James Clapper, as well as Morell, confirmed to lawmakers that the weapons shipments were known at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Rep. Devin Nunes: Are we aware of any arms that are leaving that area and going into Syria?

Mr. Morell: Yes, sir.

General Clapper: Yes

Nunes:  And who was coordinating that?

Mr. Morell: I believe the (redacted) are coordinating that.

Nunes: And were the CIA folks that were there, were they helping to coordinate that, or were they watching it, were they gathering information about it?

Mr. Morell: Sir, the focus of my officers in Benghazi was (redacted) to try to penetrate terrorist groups that were there so we could learn their plans, intentions and capabilities (redacted.

I wonder if anyone on here who blasted hillary and obama will change their minds in light of this.

I'm one who's blasted Obama lots for his specific lie, a lie this report verifies more than ever as a lie, and a politically motivated one.  The report makes clear there was conflicting reports, the admin chose a line of argument that, as Rodred quoted, reduces the appearance of failure of admin policies.  Rice went out and argued strongly for THAT take on events.  What bent me, that so many are happy to ignore, is that weeks later, even after Hillary, Carney, etc were admitting it was not a pre-planned terrorist attack, Obama went before the UN and blamed the video yet again, referencing it six times.  
 So, yeah, it's good to see that my take on events is verified.  How many on the left will now admit that Obama tried incredibly hard to perpetuate the lie?

I wonder if anyone on here who blasted hillary and obama will change their minds in light of this.

I'm one who's blasted Obama lots for his specific lie, a lie this report verifies more than ever as a lie, and a politically motivated one.  The report makes clear there was conflicting reports, the admin chose a line of argument that, as Rodred quoted, reduces the appearance of failure of admin policies.  Rice went out and argued strongly for THAT take on events.  What bent me, that so many are happy to ignore, is that weeks later, even after Hillary, Carney, etc were admitting it was not a pre-planned terrorist attack, Obama went before the UN and blamed the video yet again, referencing it six times.  
 So, yeah, it's good to see that my take on events is verified.  How many on the left will now admit that Obama tried incredibly hard to perpetuate the lie?

** The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public." **

Come on man. This isnt a statement by obamas supporters. Quite the opposite.

I wonder if anyone on here who blasted hillary and obama will change their minds in light of this.

I'm one who's blasted Obama lots for his specific lie, a lie this report verifies more than ever as a lie, and a politically motivated one.  The report makes clear there was conflicting reports, the admin chose a line of argument that, as Rodred quoted, reduces the appearance of failure of admin policies.  Rice went out and argued strongly for THAT take on events.  What bent me, that so many are happy to ignore, is that weeks later, even after Hillary, Carney, etc were admitting it was not a pre-planned terrorist attack, Obama went before the UN and blamed the video yet again, referencing it six times.    
 So, yeah, it's good to see that my take on events is verified.  How many on the left will now admit that Obama tried incredibly hard to perpetuate the lie? 

+1

Two weeks later, during that UN speech, Obama and the CIA still thought Benghazi was a spontaneous but violent movie review?

C’mon.

Two weeks later, during that UN speech, Obama and the CIA still thought Benghazi was a spontaneous but violent movie review?

C’mon.

The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public."

Two weeks later, during that UN speech, Obama and the CIA still thought Benghazi was a spontaneous but violent movie review?

C’mon.

The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public."

Here is a transcript of the Univision interview with Obama on Sept 20th – a full five days before his UN speech. Even at this point, the Univision interviewers have information the attack was al-qaeda, and are questioning Obama about it. Obama has the CIA as his source and five days later he still doesn’t know? That’s just an asinine and ridiculous hypothesis.

This is now a prima facie case of lying. So, I don’t care if the investigation couldn’t come up with the smoking gun. We need evidence that Obama and the CIA didn’t lie.

transcript here

Two weeks later, during that UN speech, Obama and the CIA still thought Benghazi was a spontaneous but violent movie review?

C’mon.

The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public."

Here is a transcript of the Univision interview with Obama on Sept 20th – a full five days before his UN speech. Even at this point, the Univision interviewers have information the attack was al-qaeda, and are questioning Obama about it. Obama has the CIA as his source and five days later he still doesn’t know? That’s just an asinine and ridiculous hypothesis.

This is now a prima facie case of lying. So, I don’t care if the investigation couldn’t come up with the smoking gun. We need evidence that Obama and the CIA didn’t lie.

transcript here

Obamas own detractors, who authored the report, who have access to more classified information than was released, are saying the opposite.

It seems like you have your mind made up and refuse to change it in light of new information. If the report found Obama at fault I would fully accept that. Of course, I’m not ideologically for or against Obama regardless of the situation. I’m capable of seeing good and bad things he does. I’m getting the feeling that you will find fault regardless of the situation because you hate Obama. Is that the case? What would it take for you to change your mind?

Two weeks later, during that UN speech, Obama and the CIA still thought Benghazi was a spontaneous but violent movie review?

C’mon.

The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public."

The report found the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs made three “substantive” changes to the talking points that included the removal of references to Al Qaeda and swapping the word “attacks” with “demonstrations.” It is not clear from the publicly available, and heavily redacted emails exactly who made the changes and who directed them, since the CIA public affairs office would be unlikely to make these changes unilaterally.

Lies and cover-ups? No way!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/30k-missing-irs-emails-recovered/article/2556522#!

The report found the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs made three “substantive” changes to the talking points that included the removal of references to Al Qaeda and swapping the word “attacks” with “demonstrations.” It is not clear from the publicly available, and heavily redacted emails exactly who made the changes and who directed them, since the CIA public affairs office would be unlikely to make these changes unilaterally.

So the CIA made a report, Obama used that to base his public comments on. How does that translate to Obama is knowingly deceiving the public?

It seems like you have your mind made up and refuse to change it in light of new information.

Honestly, I didn’t see any new information. I saw a statement that reads “we’ve got nothing that proves intent”, and I accept that. However, any open minded person can see what happened here.

It seems like you have your mind made up and refuse to change it in light of new information.

Honestly, I didn’t see any new information. I saw a statement that reads “we’ve got nothing that proves intent”, and I accept that. However, any open minded person can see what happened here.

Which is what?

It seems like you have your mind made up and refuse to change it in light of new information.

Honestly, I didn’t see any new information. I saw a statement that reads “we’ve got nothing that proves intent”, and I accept that. However, any open minded person can see what happened here.

Which is what?

That the Obama administration, for political purposes, stuck with a Benghazi explanation it knew to be untrue. I say “stuck” to give the Obama admin the benefit of the doubt. There were probably immediate concerns that the story was untrue.

Two weeks later, during that UN speech, Obama and the CIA still thought Benghazi was a spontaneous but violent movie review?

C’mon.

The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public."

I guess it’s pretty normal then for protesters to carry RPG’s and Mortars around with them?

Anyone with the smallest fraction of common sense knows that peaceful or even non peaceful “protesters” don’t just happen to go around carrying RPG’s and Mortars…

If you think Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. “What difference does it make” didn’t know the truth when they made those statements, You sir or ma’am are void of common sense and rational thought, at least on this topic.

It seems like you have your mind made up and refuse to change it in light of new information.

Honestly, I didn’t see any new information. I saw a statement that reads “we’ve got nothing that proves intent”, and I accept that. However, any open minded person can see what happened here.

Which is what?

That the Obama administration, for political purposes, stuck with a Benghazi explanation it knew to be untrue. I say “stuck” to give the Obama admin the benefit of the doubt. There were probably immediate concerns that the story was untrue.

Sticking with a story you know to be untrue is deceiving. The report says they found no intent to do that. One of us isn’t getting something here.

Two weeks later, during that UN speech, Obama and the CIA still thought Benghazi was a spontaneous but violent movie review?

C’mon.

The report blames the Obama administration’s inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public."

I guess it’s pretty normal then for protesters to carry RPG’s and Mortars around with them?

Anyone with the smallest fraction of common sense knows that peaceful or even non peaceful “protesters” don’t just happen to go around carrying RPG’s and Mortars…

If you think Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. “What difference does it make” didn’t know the truth when they made those statements, You sir or ma’am are void of common sense and rational thought, at least on this topic.

In what part of the world are we talking about here? You’re talking about an area where weapons of all sorts are quite common.

Can you explain to me why the authors of the report come to a different conclusion than you? Remember, the authors of the report are not on Obamas side. They benefit from exposing him as a liar. Help me follow how why I should side with you instead of them.