Ebola was "cured" long before the election. The Obama Administration asked the MSM AKA Obama's Lapdogs to quit reporting on it and the lapdogs quickly obliged...

We're still going to keep hearing about Benghazi once the GOP is in total control of Congress.. You can take that to the bank....

Other than being a legitimate concern, it's also a great way to keep chipping away at the "Inevitable" candidate...

Michale

Both of them almost completely disappeared from the airwaves right after the election. I guess it really is that easy to manipulate Republicans.

:)

-David

There was no conflicting "intel"...

The politicians were saying one thing and the intelligence community was saying another..

It turns out that the intelligence community was relying on, well ya know... INTELLIGENCE...

The politicians were just relying on spin and wishful thinking...

I know we'll never come to a meeting of the minds on this... Mainly because there is no commonality of experience that allows us to see, or more accurately, understand the other's viewpoints..

Michale

that's like those people who say bush should have read and taken more seriously reports before 9/11 that bin laden was determined to strike. in hindsight it's easy to criticize someone for not believing those people who later turned out to be right. the report said that intel was conflicting. should obama and bush both have been expected to show better judgment? absolutely. but that's a far cry from saying the president (either president) intentionally misled the nation after a tragedy to serve his political needs. if i had to assess probability, i'd say the likelihood is much higher that bush did so than obama, and that the repercussions for it in bush's case were much more severe.

JL

Yea, that's one story.. Another SIX stories is that CIA and DIA officials put in memos that it was a terrorist attack. The White House returned those memos and wanted a re-assessment that was more in line with their spin...

so in this case, it seems you were smarter than the US intelligence services. perhaps they should hire you;

Not at all, as what I was saying is exactly what Intelligence and Military officials were saying at the time...

In other words, we all came to the same conclusion independently of each other, based on the intel and the facts..

Obama and the Democrats can re-write recent history to their hearts content...

It won't change the fact that they were wrong and I was right..

Michale

that's also a fact. therefore, the administration repeated exactly what the CIA told them. I would posit the most likely reason for doing so was that the administration believed what the CIA told them was true.

Hell, at the time, even *I* knew that this was not the case and made that abundantly and unequivocally clear here in Weigantia..

so in this case, it seems you were smarter than the US intelligence services. perhaps they should hire you; i hear tell there's a vacancy...

JL

But I was thinking more along these lines...

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
-Bill Clinton

:D

Regardless of all of that, Obama and his officials for two weeks, claimed that the Benghazi terrorist attack was nothing more than a protest of an Anti-Islam video gone bad...

At the time, they KNEW that this was not the case..

Hell, at the time, even *I* knew that this was not the case and made that abundantly and unequivocally clear here in Weigantia..

Now, you may argue the definition of "claim" and "bad" and "two weeks" and "knew" and even "anti-islam video".

But the simple fact is, intelligence assets (including your's truly) determined that it was a terrorist attack right at the outset..

But the administration stuck to it's protest-gone-bad story for two weeks after the attack..

This is an indisputable fact..

That is all I am saying...

Michale

I think http://www.thefreedictionary.com can clear that one up for you:

To be (third person singular present indicative "is")

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.
2.
a. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
b. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
3. To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
4. To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
5. Used as a copula in such senses as:
a. To equal in identity: "To be a Christian was to be a Roman" (James Bryce).
b. To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
c. To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
d. To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
e. To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
6. To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.

v.aux.
1. Used with the past participle of a transitive verb to form the passive voice: The mayoral election is held annually.
2. Used with the present participle of a verb to express a continuing action: We are working to improve housing conditions.
3. Used with the infinitive of a verb to express intention, obligation, or future action: She was to call before she left. You are to make the necessary changes.
4. Archaic Used with the past participle of certain intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense: "Where be those roses gone which sweetened so our eyes?" (Philip Sidney).

that's only 10 definitions and 7 sub-definitions. [/snark]

Yer right..

I guess it all comes down to what the definition of 'is' is... :^/

"I might not be able to define what pornography is, but I sure know what it is when I see it."
-Unknown NYPD officer

:D

Michale

That fact is not indispute..

whether the administration's aim was to "explain away" cannot be a fact, regardless of what most members' motives actually were.

in order to be factual, a statement must be falsifiable. although all the evidence verified by the house committee tends to suggest that the mistake was unintentional, and there's a strong case for that hypothesis, i can't prove you're wrong either. people's motives are ultimately a matter of opinion, not fact.

JL

Further, it has been established by WEIGANTIANS that any leader who has wrongdoing going on in their administration and only learns about the wrongdoing from the Media is an incompetent leader..

Practically every debacle that has involved this administration, Obama et al learned about it from the media...

Ergo, simply by not being AWARE of the wrongdoing, that makes Obama incompetent.

At least, according to Weigantians...

Also, the sheer NUMBER of debacles that has come out of this administration simply precludes the idea that there isn't SOMETHING going on...

If the American people smell smoke time and time and time and time and time again.......

Well, it's a pretty safe bet that there IS a fire, even if the exact details don't line up here or there...

The idea that ALL of the debacles can be explained by coincidence and misunderstandings is ludicrous...

Contrary to the general belief from the Left, the American people are NOT "stupid"...

We know when we are being lied to and we KNOW when we are being sold a crock o crap....

Michale

I am also constrained to point out that the hysteria from the Left that exists even to this day is that Bush and Cheney LIED...

It's always been my contention that Bush and Cheney did not LIE but that they were simply wrong...

Ergo, the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed that *MY* position was correct and that ya'all's position was in error...

Talk about irking and fierce!!! :D

Michale

It depends on how you define "conspiracy"...

Was there a concentrated effort by Obama officials to explain away Benghazi as something other than a terrorist attack so as not to conflict with Obama's message that "Al Qaeda is on the ropes"??

Of course there was.. That fact is not indispute..

the senate intelligence committee on the second Iraq war found that president Bush and VP Cheney's statements on Iraq's nuclear capacity were incorrect. I realize this must irk you something fierce, but the chief distinction between those two scenarios is that Bush was wrong and Obama was right.

Obama was right???

So, Benghazi WAS nothing but a protest gone bad based on a Anti Islam YouTube video???

Shirley, you jest.. :D

I know this must irk you something fierce :D but Obama was as wrong as wrong can be...

People died and Obama lied...

Michale

It sure decimated the ranks of the Democrat Party in the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...

argumentum ad populum, aka bandwagon fallacy. I don't know whether or not most people believe the Benghazi conspiracy is real, but even if they do, that doesn't make it true. based on all the evidence that's been gathered, with very little likelihood of any additional information coming out, it's false.

How many committees did Democrats field on Iraq war II??

the senate intelligence committee on the second Iraq war found that president Bush and VP Cheney's statements on Iraq's nuclear capacity were incorrect. I realize this must irk you something fierce, but the chief distinction between those two scenarios is that Bush was wrong and Obama was right.

JL

The latest report appears thorough and well reasoned, but I do wish the last sentence in the executive summary and the conclusion of the main body wasn't there.

"Only with a full accounting of the facts can we ensure that tragedies like this one never happen again."

The above notion is pious fantasy. Mistakes will always happen in the real world. The best way to minimize mistakes is stop taking calculated risks, but if you do that over the long haul, you lose to an opponent who is willing to take them and play the percentages. That's encapsulated in the old Special Air Services motto: "Qui audet adipiscitur." Who Dares Wins.

My rewrite:

"Only with a full accounting of the facts can we learn from mistakes and continue to improve our operational responses to constantly evolving threats." That's a realistic goal.

Hoax, eh??

It sure decimated the ranks of the Democrat Party in the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...

Some "hoax".... :D

Michale

Those "political morons" being in DC and NOT here in Weigantia....

Had to make that clear.. :D

Michale

How many committees did Democrats field on Iraq war II??

And which political Party exploited THAT for cheap political points???

Seriously...

If one is going to point to the dirty hands of their opponents....

It behooves one to make sure their own hands are clean first....

Right???

The simple fact is....

Benghazi was a terrorist attack... And the Obama administration spent TWO WEEKS telling the American people it wasn't..

I can even point to comments here in Weigantia who swore up and down the Party line....

You can't re-write history, regardless of what political morons state for the record...

Michale