Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million of Your Money On Benghazi Probe

[Fenton]

I did look, Rice's comments were not false. The video was believed to play a role. There was actual intelligence from actual eyewitnesses that the associated press in Libya actually reported on :

"As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him."

Whether or not that's the whole story is controversial, but that shows that Rice's statement had merit in one potential explanation at the time.

Brazen Figure May Hold Key to Mysteries - NYTimes.com

How many millions of dollars and years of investigation does an ambassador's death that is absolutely no mystery require ?

Lol....

Hillary Clinton?s Email to Chelsea Stars in Benghazi Hearing - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[Fenton]

Preliminary reporting is not expected to be perfect.

When President Bush 2 was informed on 9/11, he sat, uncaring, in a room with little children. He didn't call it a terrorist attack, he just sat there.

But i recognize that's just silly to complain about.

How do you know Bush didn't care ?

 

[Absentglare]

Lol....

Hillary Clinton?s Email to Chelsea Stars in Benghazi Hearing - Washington Wire - WSJ

Your own blog article proves your argument moot :

"In reply, Mrs. Clinton said was careful in how the State Department statement was worded, emphasizing that it made clear how “some” have sought to justify the attacks as a response to the offensive video."

Some people claimed that the American embassy deserved to be attacked for America's role in the video. NOT necessarily the same people who actually committed the attack.

 

[Absentglare]

How do you know Bush didn't care ?

There's video and his expression is what i characterized as 'uncaring,' but i know not what was going on in his mind.

 

[Conservative]

Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million Of Your Money On Benghazi Probe
Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million of Your Money On Benghazi Probe

The House Republican investigation into the Benghazi attacks has passed its 700th day and spent $6.5 million in taxpayer money to uncover no new evidence. It is time for Republicans to pay us back every cent that they have wasted…………………..

This is a great example of government fraud waste and abuse……………And the taxpayers are going to put a stop to it come November

Wow, this coming from a liberal who has watched the liberal President add 8.4 trillion to the national debt and you are worried about millions? Talk about partisan bs. When will the taxpayers get paid back for the 842 billion in failed stimulus and the 8.4 TRILLION added to the debt? Want to deduct the Republican expenses for Benghazi? Ok, when the Democrats admit their failure with the stimulus and their support for an incompetent in the WH

 

[OpportunityCost]

Preliminary reporting is not expected to be perfect.

When President Bush 2 was informed on 9/11, he sat, uncaring, in a room with little children. He didn't call it a terrorist attack, he just sat there.

But i recognize that's just silly to complain about.

Pushing very hard for that deflection. You know that won't work with me.

The point is the cause of the attack WAS known. Rice was sent out to give disinformation. Who gave her that information and who else knew it? Further, who changed the talking points 60 days before an election?

AbsentGlare, you should be aware I can tell when you are playing stupid and when you genuinely don't know the facts, stop trying to bull**** me.

 

[Thrilla]

There's video and his expression is what i characterized as 'uncaring,' but i know not what was going on in his mind.

true, he totally should have screamed and caused a panic among those children.... then we'd really know he "cared"

 

[Absentglare]

Pushing very hard for that deflection. You know that won't work with me.

The point is the cause of the attack WAS known. Rice was sent out to give disinformation. Who gave her that information and who else knew it? Further, who changed the talking points 60 days before an election?

AbsentGlare, you should be aware I can tell when you are playing stupid and when you genuinely don't know the facts, stop trying to bull**** me.

It's not a deflection, i'm speaking to the idea that nitpicking at a specific moment in time can be pedantic and, in the case of Benghazi, it has gone far past pedantry and well into lunacy.

If you think Rice and the CIA were manipulating information, i fail to see what evidence you have for that except for her explicit suspicion that the video played a role. That's not proof of anything. The CIA didn't want to tip off the terrorists. The video still could have played a role, sure.

And don't you remember what President Obama called the attack ...?

 

[Absentglare]

true, he totally should have screamed and caused a panic among those children.... then we'd really know he "cared"

IMO, i think it would have made sense for him to leave, however abruptly, without providing specifics other than that he is sorely needed elsewhere.

But i have the ability to acknowledge that hindsight is 20:20 and that there is a reasonable justification for his behavior.

 

[Thrilla]

IMO, i think it would have made sense for him to leave, however abruptly, without providing specifics other than that he is sorely needed elsewhere.

But i have the ability to acknowledge that hindsight is 20:20 and that there is a reasonable justification for his behavior.

yeah, i totally don't care about his reaction... it's a non-issue entirely.

it's not like his reaction changes anything, anywhere... stay, leave, panic.. whatever... it changes nothing.

 

[Conservative]

yeah, i totally don't care about his reaction... it's a non-issue entirely.

it's not like his reaction changes anything, anywhere... stay, leave, panic.. whatever... it changes nothing.

What we have here is a President that has added 8.4 trillion to the debt and the left is worried about millions spent to investigate the deaths of four Americans including an Ambassador of a person who wants to be commander in chief? Seems like a typical leftwing diversion from reality and what is actually happening in the bigger picture.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It's not a deflection, i'm speaking to the idea that nitpicking at a specific moment in time can be pedantic and, in the case of Benghazi, it has gone far past pedantry and well into lunacy.

If you think Rice and the CIA were manipulating information, i fail to see what evidence you have for that except for her explicit suspicion that the video played a role. That's not proof of anything. The CIA didn't want to tip off the terrorists. The video still could have played a role, sure.

And don't you remember what President Obama called the attack ...?

I'm not speaking to a specific moment in time, I'm speaking to the cover up that occurred AFTER.

"Explicit suspicion" -- fancy word for blamed. So, we don't know WHO changed the talking points. But we do know they were changed. We also don't know why, so you are assuming when you say didn't want to tip off the terrorists, and keep in mind, this is 5 days later. I don't think Rice changed the talking points but I have to wonder if she was chosen because she was below "the need to know" level of the change.

It was a coordinated attack. The video had one role and that was to give cover.

You are being such an apologist for the Obama administration that you have decided to not only say an investigation is not warranted but that it is pedantic and lunacy. Meanwhile you assign and assume motivations with no proof or evidence. You don't even want to know what happened. Half of your posts are playing dumb and the other half are deflecting from facts.

Apparently your personal credibility means less to you than giving cover for the Obama administration.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm not speaking to a specific moment in time, I'm speaking to the cover up that occurred AFTER.

"Explicit suspicion" -- fancy word for blamed. So, we don't know WHO changed the talking points. But we do know they were changed. We also don't know why, so you are assuming when you say didn't want to tip off the terrorists, and keep in mind, this is 5 days later. I don't think Rice changed the talking points but I have to wonder if she was chosen because she was below "the need to know" level of the change.

It was a coordinated attack. The video had one role and that was to give cover.

You are being such an apologist for the Obama administration that you have decided to not only say an investigation is not warranted but that it is pedantic and lunacy. Meanwhile you assign and assume motivations with no proof or evidence. You don't even want to know what happened. Half of your posts are playing dumb and the other half are deflecting from facts.

Apparently your personal credibility means less to you than giving cover for the Obama administration.

"Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA's first drafts said the attack appeared to have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" but the CIA version went on to say, "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia."

"After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points - deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack."

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

How many millions of dollars and years of investigations will it take to resolve this already resolved issue of the CIA telling Susan Rice to mention the video ?

 

[OpportunityCost]

"Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA's first drafts said the attack appeared to have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" but the CIA version went on to say, "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia."

"After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points - deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack."

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

How many millions of dollars and years of investigations will it take to resolve this already resolved issue of the CIA telling Susan Rice to mention the video ?

All of which ignored that the Libyan government knew it was a terrorist attack having nothing to do with the video on day 1. ABC, of course, declined to mention that detail. But if you aren't really looking, which, the Obama administration wasn't, they can keep up the fake story because it isn't definitively disproven...yet.

Plausible deniability.

 

[Absentglare]

All of which ignored that the Libyan government knew it was a terrorist attack having nothing to do with the video on day 1. ABC, of course, declined to mention that detail. But if you aren't really looking, which, the Obama administration wasn't, they can keep up the fake story because it isn't definitively disproven...yet.

Plausible deniability.

Your argument is complete bull****. Susan Rice never claimed that it was NOT a terrorist attack. In fact, if it was about the video, that makes it terrorism by definition. And we also know that the group wasn't DIRECTLY tied to Al Qaeda, though they are loosely affiliated.

"Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi."

Assault on U.S. consulate in Benghazi leaves 4 dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens - CBS News

 

[OpportunityCost]

Your argument is complete bull****. Susan Rice never claimed that it was NOT a terrorist attack. In fact, if it was about the video, that makes it terrorism by definition. And we also know that the group wasn't DIRECTLY tied to Al Qaeda, though they are loosely affiliated.

"Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi."

Assault on U.S. consulate in Benghazi leaves 4 dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens - CBS News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cetu6SMiZsY&nohtml5=False


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG64x31wyCU&nohtml5=False


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGLQ63qUHHo&nohtml5=False


Apparently it does matter, or you wouldn't be trying to so hard to spin things. The underlying question is can we trust our government? The answer looks like no.

 

[Fenton]

Your own blog article proves your argument moot :

"In reply, Mrs. Clinton said was careful in how the State Department statement was worded, emphasizing that it made clear how “some” have sought to justify the attacks as a response to the offensive video."

Some people claimed that the American embassy deserved to be attacked for America's role in the video. NOT necessarily the same people who actually committed the attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ve-82-percent-of-clinton-emails-now-released/

I was referring to the Email that Hillary sent Chelsea the night of the attack

You know, the one where she tells Chelsea that a protest over a YouTube video got a little sideways causing the death of Chris Sanders..


Oh wait, that's not what she told Chelsea at all.

 

[Absentglare]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ve-82-percent-of-clinton-emails-now-released/

I was referring to the Email that Hillary sent Chelsea the night of the attack

You know, the one where she tells Chelsea that a protest over a YouTube video got a little sideways causing the death of Chris Sanders..


Oh wait, that's not what she told Chelsea at all.

That doesn't matter.

It was the CIA who told Susan Rice to mention the video, NOT Hillary Clinton.

 

[Fletch]

Please tell us what the truth is............. in 20 million spent no one else seems to know............"My inquiring mind wants to know ..."

I actually tend to agree with you on this one. I think the investigation was quite pointless since everyone knew exactly what happened almost immediately--there was an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that killed an American ambassador two months before a presidential election. The Obama administration knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack yet lied to protect their political asses.

 

[Kobie]

I actually tend to agree with you on this one. I think the investigation was quite pointless since everyone knew exactly what happened almost immediately--there was an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that killed an American ambassador two months before a presidential election. The Obama administration knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack yet lied to protect their political asses.

They most definitely did, which is despicable but not unheard of. Then the talking points became the issue, and while it was quite obvious it was the CIA that whitewashed those, THAT got stuck on Hillary. Not Obama, but Hillary. Because it was well known that she'd be running, and it was a pre-emptive strike against the GOP's biggest threat.

Pure politics. Not necessarily wrong, but pure politics nonetheless.

However, it has gotten out of control at this point. This is Bill Clinton's blowjob all over again.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That doesn't matter.

It was the CIA who told Susan Rice to mention the video, NOT Hillary Clinton.

We don't know that as a fact. We STILL don't know who changed those talking points. That's the point.

 

[Absentglare]

We don't know that as a fact. We STILL don't know who changed those talking points. That's the point.

No, the CIA provided the initial taking points that included a reference to the video.

The final version was also drafted by the CIA and also included a reference to the video.

That was all known several million dollars and several years ago. That's the point.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No, the CIA provided the initial taking points that included a reference to the video.

The final version was also drafted by the CIA and also included a reference to the video.

That was all known several million dollars and several years ago. That's the point.

No, its not. The individual that made the change is not known. Who instructed them to make the change is not known. If there was control made outside the CIA is not known.

 

[Absentglare]

No, its not. The individual that made the change is not known. Who instructed them to make the change is not known. If there was control made outside the CIA is not known.

That's not true, either. We know who made some decisions and why.

"Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaeda in versions of the talking points and said he did so because he believed the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department over the CIA's own station chief in Libya."

"Questioners on the House panel asked how he could believe it was both a protest gone awry and a planned terror attack. He said they were not "mutually exclusive.""

Ex-CIA deputy defends role in Benghazi talking points

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's not true, either. We know who made some decisions and why.

"Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaeda in versions of the talking points and said he did so because he believed the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department over the CIA's own station chief in Libya."

"Questioners on the House panel asked how he could believe it was both a protest gone awry and a planned terror attack. He said they were not "mutually exclusive.""

Ex-CIA deputy defends role in Benghazi talking points

Yes because Morrell is not changing his story repeatedly:
https://sharylattkisson.com/the-evolving-revolving-benghazi-story-from-mike-morell-and-white-house/

One example is the series of internal “talking points” drafts circulated among administration officials. Documents belatedly produced to Congress revealed that Obama advisor Ben Rhodes advised officials to blame the video, in part, “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”


“I think that is crossing the line between national security and politics,” Morell said to Baier in an interview this week.

Previously, Morell had testified that mistakes made regarding Benghazi were not due to politics. Likewise, the White House has made similar claims.

Another contradiction came when Morell testified to the House Intelligence Committee on April 2, 2014. At the time, he was still defending the White House.

“To be very clear,” said Morell, “the White House did not make any substantive changes to the talking points.”

In written testimony submitted to the committee Morell also specifically denied that the National Security Staff, which is chaired by the President, made changes. At the time, he called it a “myth.”

“No one at the NSS suggested or requested a single substantive change. That is a simple fact, and calling it a myth doesn’t change the reality.”

However, former White House NSS official Tommy Vietor subsequently told Baier of Fox News that he made at least one substantive change and, perhaps, more.