The CIA didn't leave anything in.
The CIA did not insert anything about the video - that came from the White House desperate to hide the
fact that there had been AQ warnings, and that the attacks contrasted with the Obama' campaigns claims about the success of its' counter-terror program.
Clearly there were institutional security failures in Benghazi ... it was a consulate and needed protection that wasn't provided, be it prior or after the fact. However, once the crap went down, this notion that magic troops were going to drop in and magically make everything all better is pure fantasy.
Magic? Make everything all better? No. But we did have assets that were capable of being moved in, and they were stood down. We have a variety of units designed to respond
specifically to this kind of event.
Keep telling yourself that.
I intend to keep telling
others that in the hopes that eventually we'll be able to run this to ground.
Repeating it ad nauseam with no evidence doesn't make that true.
That is correct - it is the fact that it is true that makes it true.
"Nobody cared a whit" is somehow better, apparently. The Benghazi dog isn't hunting, dude. The only people who think something more insidious happened are people with a political agenda.
That is also not accurate. For example, we actually had a guy on this forum who was a fairly progressive fellow and happened to be a guy who actually knew the players on the ground, had just left that consulate, and was with State. He was pretty livid - he hasn't been around much since, but last time he was in here he had (as I recall) some bitter things to say about the administration he had previously spent months defending. Then he got upset because all of his former allies started personally attacking people he had worked with and respected because they were disputing the administrations' claims, and, again, sort of dropped off the boards.
Incidentally - before you simply state that the man built a multi-year false persona because he had magically predicted such an event and wanted to use it in a useless debate forum to lend credence to the administrations' critics, I actually was able to check him out in RL - and he was indeed legit.
Yeah, two countries, including one that had nothing to do with it.
That's fascinating. You think that the Taliban had nothing to do with Al Qaeda? Man, that's some high-speed intel you've got there.
I don't mean how the GOP twisted the entire country into doing the 9/11 cha-cha; I mean that Republicans have called hearing after hearing when it took an act of god to drag most of them before the 9/11 commission. 9/11 wasn't a concern for the GOP, it was a justification.
:doh Bush set up the Commission when Republicans had taken both houses and his personal approval ratings were still sky high. Furthermore, the changes to the Intelligence Community were
driven by the Bush administration.
Stick your perspective straight up your self-righteous ass. I'm old enough, by a long shot, to remember 9/11 and how your sainted GOP used the people who died there for political gain.
You're old enough to remember 9/11? Really? that's your claim to legitimacy here? Heck, I get brand new LCpl's who were in 3rd Grade on 9/11;
they "remember 9/11".
No one's claiming the GOP is sainted - there's plenty of idiocy, banality, and corruption in the GOP. We're simply pointing out that the Obama administration proved willing to stand over the caskets of a dead U.S. ambassador and national security personnel and lie to the American people about the circumstances of that successful attack in order to protect themselves politically.
wtf? Dude Republicans invaded two countries over that and ran a national-security-heavy administration for seven years, involving a complete reprioritization of intelligence and defense priorities allocations and alignments, increased engagement with dozens of nations, and they ran a presidential campaign on it. Over Benghazi they want hearings.
