They were partially right..

Benghazi is going to be a BIG issue, a HUGE issue in the 2016 POTUS Election..

You heard it here first...

Michale

Re: the protests, or lack thereof: this is discussed starting on page 33 of the report, beginning with:
In the immediate aftermath ofthe attacks, the IC received numerous reports, both classified and unclassified, which provided contradictory accounts that there were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility. In some cases, these intelligence reports-which were disseminated widely in the Intelligence Community--contained references to press reports on protests that were simply copied into intelligence products. Other reporting indicated there wete no protests. Fot lC Qpt~ined closed circuit television video from the Mission facility and there were credible eyewitness statements of U.S. personnel on the ground that night, which the FBI began to collect from interviewing survivors starting on September 15, 2012, in Ramstein Air Base, Germany.

The IC also had information that there were no protests outside the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks, but did not incorporate that information into its widely circulated assessments in a timely manner.

Starting on page 43 there's the history of the Talking Points provided by the CIA to the admininstration, Susan Rice, etc. followed by the edits that had been done. From the CIA on September 15, 2012:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

Now, that turns out to have been wrong. There's lots of stuff in the report about the conflicting data and when information filtered through to the U.S.

Now, you read the report: what pages do your quotes come from?

Read the report.. :D They are direct quotes, so they should be easy to find.. :D

Michale

I don't need a Senate report to tell me Obama lied..

Obama said that there was a protest because of an anti-Muslim video.

This was not true.

Obama KNEW it was not true when he said it.

Textbook definition of a lie..

It doesn't matter whether it was from a HuffPo commentary, a Fox News report or Repub notes on a Senate report.

Obama made a statement.

It was a false statement.

Obama KNEW it was a false statement when he made it.

Ergo. He lied...

Keep in mind, I don't have a problem with a POTUS that lies..

It's WHY a POTUS lies that is important...

Michale

The are part of the report and appear to be a sort of written republican response to the report's conclusions. As I've noted, they appear to be a screed about nonsensical stuff like "labeling". But they are part of the official document.

On what pages did you get your quotes?

And find me the quote, btw, that says "Obama unequivocally lied". Page number please.

Wait a minute..

You told me to read "the report"...

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to read only the parts of the report that support YOUR argument...

I read the report, as you suggested..

IN THE REPORT, it states unequivocally that Obama lied...

Don't blame me because the report that YOU held up as the final word completely supports the facts as I have laid them out...

There was no protest.

There was no video in Libya.

Obama's White House *knew* from the start that it was a terrorist attack.. Yet, for TWO WEEKS they pounded home this bullshit story about a mythical protest..

I seem to remember how the Left went practically apeshit when Colin Powell went to the UN with his faulty intelligence..

Obama KNEW that the protest/video story was bullshit.. Yet he sent Rice to the UN to relay that bullshit story...

The response from the Left??

{{chiiirrrrppppp}} {{{chirrrp}}}

Cricket city...

Our Ambassador was brutally killed.

Obama lied about it..

It's that simple...

Michale

Obama lied.

Obama and his administration had stated over and over again for weeks that Benghazi was a protest gone bad.

That was a lie.

Obama and his administration had stated over and over again that the non-existent protest was due to some anti-muslim youtube video.

That was a lie.

These are facts.

It's not spin, it doesn't matter if HuffPo is saying this or FOxNews is saying this.

Facts know no political ideological master.

Obama lied.

That's the beginning and end of my point.

I know your ideological position doesn't allow you to concede these facts..

But they are facts, nonetheless...

Michale

Having said that, please specify from where in the report did you find the quoted text?

In the body of the report, or in the Republican addendum? Give me the page numbers.

Then, please explain why it matters? You're/they're unhappy that the word "terrorism" wasn't used? That's what all this hysteria and 8 or 9 heavy duty investigations boils down to? You guys didn't like the wording?

Not liking the wording translates into "he lied, he lied, he lied!!!!"

Read what you posted. The world was going to end because the administration's communications were muddled and confusing in the initial days after the events? Your own quote admits the administration "finally published the complete time line of the changes made to the talking points," but they needed smelling salts because there had been MUDDLE???

The report didn't raise enough hell about "labeling"????

The administration was "inconsistent for several days" because it didn't scream "terrorism!!" all over the media?

And this is unforgivable because why? How did it hurt anything or affect anything that mattered? Where is the crime here? The malfeasance? Why do the repubs get to dictate the words Obama must use? Exactly where in the Constitution is that? Where in the presidential oath does it say the president must use the most inflammatory language possible at all times?

So here's the deal on this one. We both consulted a source document. We operated from different viewpoints and different levels of actual interest. You glommed onto the repub talking points at the end because they offered an sort of "official" justification for your previous position of "Obama Lied!" and you provided some of their language. You get points for using real text from a source.

You don't change my mind because the stuff you quote is such weak tea -- the pathetic efforts by repubs to justify their venom and to provide fodder for right wing media. You don't care that this is the best they could come up with, in the face of the exhaustive information provided earlier in the report.

But that's ok. Well, its ok in that I think people can agree to disagree -- I just want them, if they're going to bother to argue at all, to have some basis for their opinion beyond ANYONE's press releases and talking points. But I think you should carefully evaluate what you read, and how you reacted to it. If you genuinely think that the use/or lack of use of the word/label "terrorism" justifies the relentless attacks by repubs on this topic I have to say I can't respect that. If you really truly, after reflection, still believe that "Obama Lied!" and the apocalypse is around the corner because of that, well, I'm at a loss.

I'm not saying you have change your mind about everything-Obama, or about a single-other-thing-Obama, but if you can't change your mind about anything no matter what the evidence is then you are no longer developing as a human being. You have abdicated both your capacity and responsibility for the exercise of your own judgement and intelligence.

This is from the Senate Report, Paula...

Obama lied. Pure and simple.

It's all there in black and white...

Michale

I did read the report..

Finally, the report does not go far enough to address the Administration's
failure to correctly label the incident as a deliberate and organized terrorist attack
in the days following the attack. As our "Flashing Red" report found, there was
never any doubt among key officials, including officials in the IC and the
Department of State, that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism. Yet,
high-ranking Administration officials, including the President himself, repeatedly
cast doubt on the nature of the attack, at times attributing it to the reaction to an
anti-Islamic video and to a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.

Obama KNEW that it was a terrorist attack. The White House briefed the Pentagon nearly in real time that a "TERRORIST ATTACK" was in progress.

Yet, for almost TWO WEEKS after the terrorist attack, Obama and his minions stated that it was the results of a protest.. That it was NOT a terrorist attack..

It's as much of a lie as Obama's constant "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" lies...

Our Ambassador died. And Obama lied..

I realize the facts are not very pleasant for you.

But, regardless of that, they ARE the facts...

Michale

This is a perfect illustration of the problem with you righties.

You didn't read the report, did you? It's there. It's 85 pages.

It goes over the events quite specifically. It outlines specific failures by several players and it makes a series of recommendations.

They address the video several times, and Al-Qaeda -- the two "lies" you presented.

And you know what? At the end it also includes several pages of vague accusations by the republicans on the committee who complain of various non-specific withholdings if information. Indeed, their complaints read like the perfect set-ups for FOX News.

Now, frankly, this particular issue never interested me so I haven't followed it closely. My conclusion was that something awful happened -- as it does regularly in those parts of the world -- that there were screw-ups and that the Obama Admin would work to improve things. Then there was the hysterical reaction by the right, which has been desperately trying to find some kind of scandal to pin on Obama. Any kind of scandal. Anything at all.

But you bring up Benghazi all the time -- without knowing anything about it beyond the vague bullshit spewed by rightwing media.

That's how you become a tool.

{21} Uh uh. Not my turn. This is another typical tactic by righties when they're losing: change the subject!

I'm curious: do you do that consciously or is it just so ingrained you don't realize you're doing it? I'm serious, not snarking.

Coz once again, that's how you become a tool.

Give me specific differences between Republicans and Democrats in Congress vis a vis their actions...

Michale

Specifically.

That Benghazi was caused by a anti-muslim video.

That Al-Qaeda wasn't involved in the attack.

There are plenty more, but those can likely be chalked up to being incompetent.. As I often say about Bush's "lies", being wrong does not a lie make...

Michale

Fact #2. Obama and his administration lied about it.

The lies are?

Keep in mind that another report has just been released today by the Senate Intelligence committee. The basic conclusions: there were definite screw-ups, poor communication between CIA and Embassy Security, thus the attacks were preventable. There wasn't enough money for security either.

All of this was determined a long time ago and no one disputes it.

No evidence whatsoever of any nefarious anythings by Obama, Susan Rice, etc. Same conclusions reached by other investigations, including those by the, count 'em:

*the independent State Department Accountability Review Board, led by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and career diplomat Thomas Pickering;

* the Senate Intelligence Committee;

* the Senate Armed Services Committee;

* the House Intelligence Committee,

* the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee;

* the House Armed Services Committee;

* the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform;

* and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Go read the actual report: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

Not the FOX spin, the report.

Then tell me what "lies" Obama told. Your "facts". Also provide your sources. Random assertions by wingnuts, including wingnuts in congress, don't count. If you just dredge up more FOX News bullshit then you'll entirely prove my point.

What lies, dude.

Specifically.

Just ONE thing....

You can't...

And THAT destroys ANY argument for superiority that you can come up with...

Michale

I am!! How did you know!?? :D

Your entire rant is devoid of one thing..

FACTS...

I have provided you with FACTS and asked you to address them..

Fact #1. A US Ambassador was brutally killed.

Fact #2. Obama and his administration lied about it.

Now, according to ya'all, when a president lies it's a "big fucking deal"...

But, apparently, it's only a "big fucking deal" when a GOP President lies...

So, now the ball is in your court..

No matter HOW you tap dance, you can't escape the facts..

Obama lied about Benghazi...

This is fact...

And it utterly decimates ANY "moral" argument you have in favor of Democrats...

Michale

No one can prove a negative: Prove to me right now that you are NOT a Wiccan. Prove it. Go ahead. Prove it.

I've decided you are a Wiccan. When we're not looking, you're running out with other Wiccans to do ceremonies by the light of the moon, worshipping nature gods. Prove me wrong.

That is the nature of your continual stupid assertions -- that's why Benghazi is such a joke. Because there's no there, there, but rightie mouthpieces like you will keep yelling Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! while there's a breath in your bodies. And so long as you can work yourself into frenzies about invented scandals you will be unable to invest any energy or effort in actually examining the validity of anything.

You assert that you provide specifics but you never really do -- you make accusations: Obama LIED about Benghazi, and tell yourself "that's specific".

Benghazi isn't an "issue" it is an invention. I have no doubt your side will attempt to use it, and will attempt to use a million other manufactured tidbits because righties lack the courage to conduct stand up fights. Lies are always easier, particularly when willing minions like you dutifully amplify them. What a sad bunch you are.

Though your flirting with being a warlock is intriguing! How did you locate your coven?

Until Obama and the Democrats come COMPLETELY clean on Benghazi, until Obama and the Democrats are COMPLETELY transparent about Benghazi, as they promised they would be (remember?? The "most transparent administration in history"..), until that time, Benghazi will ALWAYS be an issue..

ESPECIALLY if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee for POTUS...

If the Democrats don't want Benghazi to be an issue thru 2016, then they better not have Hillary "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!???" Clinton as the Dem nominee for POTUS...

Michale

The problem ensues when ya'all don't LIKE the context or don't LIKE the specifics...

For example. The biggest problem with Benghazi is that OUR AMBASSADOR was brutally killed and the Obama Administration blatantly LIED about why...

THAT is the context..

THAT is the specifics...

Your response???

Michale

I ALWAYS give context and specifics..

The problem for you is the actions are utterly hypocritical and completely indefensible..

Don't blame me because the argument works.. :D

All you have to do is concede the point and then I'm done. =:D

Michale

No??

Didna think so... :D

Michale

"This domestic surveillance is CRIMINAL!!! The 4th Amendment is sacrosanct!!! There doesn't need to be ANY domestic surveillance at all!!! This President should be prosecuted as a WAR CRIMINAL for these heinous and criminal actions!! He should.... What?? It's a DEMOCRAT President???
.............
Never mind....

Now, is that or is that not an accurate representation??

Of course it is...

It's indefensible...

Michale

OK, the: "you criticize righties but not lefties when they do the same thing!!" That's an evergreen. Can say it over and over, without context or specifics. Just a good 'ol general assertion.

Because, says the little tape in my head: both sides are equally bad and therefore I never have to delve any deeper. It's so much easier to repeat bullshit than it is to evaluate. And its fun to piss off liberals while pretending to myself that I'm saying something meaningful, right and true! After all, I'm the only true American on CW so anything I say is ipso facto correct!

Both sides do it! Both sides do it! Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

It's actually YA'ALL that have a problem with thinking...

Would a THINKING person attack a GOP POTUS mercilessly for actions taken and then give a DEM POTUS a complete and utter free ride for ESCALATING those same actions??

Nope.. THAT person would just blindly follow political ideology and throw their integrity, their morals, their principles onto the garbage heap...

Party uber alles....

Michale

Keep telling yourself that buddy. Turn on your little mental tape and replay that over and over. So much easier than thinking.

Benghazi, Benhazi, Benghazi!!

Stuff like this would have had the Left going hysterical and rioting in the streets..

Under a Democrat, it doesn't even rate a MENTION from the Left..

Why is that???

Because, for political ideologues, the ONLY thing that is important is power..

Either BEING in power or having your people in power..

Everything else and ANYTHING else is secondary to that...

Michale

Because, from where I sit, totally unencumbered by ANY political ideology, there really isn't ANY difference between the two..

Can you give me ONE thing, ONE SINGLE THING that differentiates a Republican politician from a Democrat politician..

ONE SINGLE THING...

They both lie..

They both cheat.

They are both corrupt.

They both only care about themselves and their Party.

They don't do anything altruistically.

I could go on and on but you get the idea.

Give me one single substantial relevant thing that differentiates a Republican from a Democrat...

Just one...

Michale

And Democrats do the same and hire LEFT wing spin meisters and lie ("If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan) and peddle them via every MSM outlet EXCEPT Fox News..

ABU GHRAIB, BUSH LIED, ABU GHRAIB, BUSH LIED

Still waiting for you to come up with some REAL differences between Repubs and Dems...

Michale

No, the difference is repubs lie their heads off and use their consitutents. They hire Frank Luntzes to create appealing lies and peddle them via FOX and through the mouths of people like you. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

The Dems alternatively do good things and bad things because they can't resolve the conflict between the people with the dough and the people they have sworn to serve. That is why they offer opportunities that the pubs don't. The Dems are potentially reachable, the pubs are closed. Just like you.

But the funny thing is, the income equality gap has grown by leaps and bounds under Obama and the Democrats..

So, exactly how are Democrats going to talk about combatting Income Inequality when they are the CAUSE of it, in the here and now??

By talking out both sides of their ass?? :D

Michale

In other words, Republicans are honest about it and Democrats are sneaky and talk out both sides of their ass..

That's what *I* have been saying for years!! :D

Michale

This is one of a slew of ideas that need to gain real traction. The question for the Democratic Party is when and how it's going to genuinely begin working for the 99%. It took Occupy Wall Street to start the conversation and to create an actual awareness of income inequality and all the streams that converge to create income inequality. The fact that most of our "rulers" either are part of the 1% or directly serve the 1%, of course, is the hurdle.

As I've said before: Repubs in power openly serve the 1% while Dems in power covertly serve the 1%, but are ambivalent about it. That's where the opening lies.