JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[Predicto]

Ok so I see we have generally come to an agreement on this board that they did lie. Correct?

No, not at all. Only if you define lying as "making a diplomatic speech that doesn't use the exact words that, in retrospect, someone else might have used if they had absolutely perfect information immediately available to them."

What is the LIE?

So now the debate is why they lied?

Bang's theory is military necessity. (BTW Bang I think you are the only one I've seen anywhere and I mean not just in this thread that has that theory for their motivation in this case).

My theory it was politics and a so what, as that is what politicians do.

Others theorys are a so what they were lying for legitimate reasons (Reasons yet to be explained).

And some that this was politics so they should be burned at the stake.

And some that it isn't lying to make a speech that reflects your own uncertainty about what exactly happened, and projects diplomacy to people that you think might be getting riled up.

Partisans start with the assumption of an intent to lie, and then can get to any nefarious theory they want. Even if you generously tack on your opinion that lying is just "politics as usual" it is really just partisan bull :pooh:

[twa]

There isn't a consensus on that, hell the original and second CIA talking points memo said that it was linked to the Cairo protests so inaccurate information in a confusing situation != lying.

Is that true?

If so we need to be investigating their ignorance

add

you have it backwards.....the originals linked it to AQ aligned terrorists

[GoSkins0721]

did it ever occur to anyone that the CiC may lie about something like that because the enemy is also paying attention?

Do we think that we should just tell everything we know to the cameras so they can have it as well?

was Ike LYING when he sent Patton to the north of england to command a false force so the Germans would think he was massing to attack Calais?

was he LYING because FDR didn't tell us that those tanks and trucks were made of wood and balloon?

Was Truman LYING because he didn't tell us about the Atom Bomb until it was dropped?

It's absolutely ****ing STUPID to assume that during a WAR, in the MIDST of an attack (as we saw, there were other flareups around US installations in the entire ME region...)

that we should just say EVERYTHING we know on television? (and of course, KNOW everything that there is to know about what is happening)

Is the right THAT ****ING DUMB?

of course not.. but their leadership and mouthpieces DEFINITELY think YOU are,, so they do this to convince you of more bull****,, simply for the sake of power.

It could be argued that they are jeopardizing the mission by demanding answers to an unfolding military situation, and of course, 10 years ago they'd have called you a ****ing traitor for questioning the presidnet during wartime.

****ing STUPID.

~Bang

You know, Bang, I really gotta call a spade a spade here.

You are so ****ing on point that people in this thread should stop and re-read what you have posted. :applause:

As the spouse of a former employee of one of those 3-letter-acronyms, I hear this speech all the time...

[Kilmer17]

After re-learning this "event" I guess the question I'd like answered is why anyone ever talked about this being a response to a video.

Where did that even originate?

I dont think it warrants a Congressional Inquiry, but it's something that I think the administration should examine.

[jpyaks3]

After re-learning this "event" I guess the question I'd like answered is why anyone ever talked about this being a response to a video.

Where did that even originate?

I dont think it warrants a Congressional Inquiry, but it's something that I think the administration should examine.

I think it was because at the same time there were massive protests going on in Cairo, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other places that were sparked by the stupid video so the connection would make sense especially in a fog of war.

---------- Post added May-9th-2013 at 02:59 PM ----------

Is that true?

If so we need to be investigating their ignorance

add

you have it backwards.....the originals linked it to AQ aligned terrorists

According to this it is

CIA Talking Points Linked Attack To Protests In Cairo. The first bullet point from what The Weekly Standarddescribed as “Version 1″ of the CIA talking points says that “based on currently available information,” the attacks were “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” The final version of the document made the same link:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. [The Weekly Standard,5/13/13 via Media Matters]

Cairo Protests Cited By CIA Talking Points Were Sparked By The Anti-Islam Video. The “protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” mentioned in both versions of the CIA talking points were part of a global reaction to the anti-Islam video. A September 14 New York Times article reported “Anti-American rage that began this week over a video insult to Islam spread to nearly 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond on Friday, with violent and sometimes deadly protests.” The article went on to note that protesters “had penetrated the perimeters of the American Embassies in the Tunisian and Sudanese capitals, and said that 65 embassies or consulates around the world had issued emergency messages about threats of violence.” [The New York Times, 9/14/12]

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/right_wing_media_push_new_benghazi_myths_partner/singleton/

[Kilmer17]

I thought it was now accepted that noone in the ME knew of the video at the time?

[twa]

[/color]

According to this it is

yet according to Petraeus and Hicks it was clearly not.

maybe the 'investigation' will bring clarity

[PeterMP]

I thought it was now accepted that noone in the ME knew of the video at the time?

That's certainly not true:

http://theweek.com/article/index/233454/the-anti-islam-film-riots-a-timeline

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/movie-stirs-protest-at-us-embassy-in-cairo.html?_r=0

---------- Post added May-9th-2013 at 03:56 PM ----------

Bang's theory is military necessity. (BTW Bang I think you are the only one I've seen anywhere and I mean not just in this thread that has that theory for their motivation in this case).

Here's what Petreaus said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html?pagewanted=2

" Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California. "

[Kilmer17]

That's certainly not true:

http://theweek.com/article/index/233454/the-anti-islam-film-riots-a-timeline

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/movie-stirs-protest-at-us-embassy-in-cairo.html?_r=0

---------- Post added May-9th-2013 at 03:56 PM ----------

Here's what Petreaus said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html?pagewanted=2

" Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California. "

And he's not really saying it was changed from a specific and planned attack, but that it was changed from naming general groups involved to simply saying extremists not to tip people off.

Yeah. I liked it better when I didnt know or give a crap about this.

Let the zealots rage.

[ncr2h]

You know, Bang, I really gotta call a spade a spade here.

You are so ****ing on point that people in this thread should stop and re-read what you have posted. :applause:

...

Actually, Bang's explanation is incredibly weak.

He brings up stuff like Truman with the A bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-hiroshima/

Truman:

Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of TNT. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British "Grand Slam" which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.

That explanation pretty much jives with everything we know about what happened.

The explanation for Benghazi would be like Truman saying, "The explosion in Hiroshima was the result of spontaneous combustion. Nothing to see here. And now, back to your scheduled programming."

Bang's getting caught up in the, "Rah! We're at war! Rah rah rah rabble rabble rabble! That means we have to spread misinformation, because it helps our tactics! Rabble rabble!" But there's a difference about spreading misinformation about something that hasn't happened yet, and spreading misinformation about something that already happened. The former is a tactic. The latter is an attempt to shield certain people from accountability.

I don't personally care about Benghazi. If it's a scandal, it's pretty small beans IMO. But Bang's rationalization was clearly not applicable here.

[Bang]

Actually, Bang's explanation is incredibly weak.

He brings up stuff like Truman with the A bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-hiroshima/

Truman:

That explanation pretty much jives with everything we know about what happened.

The explanation for Benghazi would be like Truman saying, "The explosion in Hiroshima was the result of spontaneous combustion. Nothing to see here. And now, back to your scheduled programming."

Bang's getting caught up in the, "Rah! We're at war! Rah rah rah rabble rabble rabble! That means we have to spread misinformation, because it helps our tactics! Rabble rabble!" But there's a difference about spreading misinformation about something that hasn't happened yet, and spreading misinformation about something that already happened. The former is a tactic. The latter is an attempt to shield certain people from accountability.

I don't personally care about Benghazi. If it's a scandal, it's pretty small beans IMO. But Bang's rationalization was clearly not applicable here.

we didn't spread any misinformation about the A bomb,, we kept it entirely secret, which was the point of including it in my post. However, you can bet a dollar that if anyone asked what was going on at Los Alamos, they were lied to and fed misinformation. Imagine that in the 24 hour news cycle of today..

We DID spread misinformation about Patton and his phantom army. We spread all sorts of false rumors and lies to get the Germans to believe we were landing in Calais when we were heading for Normandy. the President allowed for falsified communiques of his to be intercepted containing info that would lead the enemy astray.

We DID plant phony stories and such in newspapers that cooperated to send the enemy false info, and to flush out spies, .. we did it many times to try and mask troop crossings and convoys, and also to set up U-boat packs for destruction by placing phony ship timetables.. i included legit and real examples of the different sorts of things which happen during wartime that send the Sean Hannity's of the world off frothing at the mouth. (unless it's a republican president.)

these clowns sound every bit as ridiculous as the truthers screaming Bush blew up the towers.

we don't know everything, nor should we.

and in the absence of knowing everything we shouldn't make up what we think it is, and run off as if we DO know.

and the whole point is not to say "we SHOULD spread misinformation.. it's to say we don't know what's going on in those hours after attacks or whatever, and we don't know the motivations behind why the admin and intel community may say one thing or another.

There may be a perfectly good military reason behind it.

However, to assume as these self righteous *******s have that it's the worst thing they can think it is and that's all there is to it is asinine. Exceedingy narrow and weak minded fools fall for that ****.

Or, as I like to call them, Fox viewers.

~Bang

[GoSkins0721]

Actually, Bang's explanation is incredibly weak.

He brings up stuff like Truman with the A bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-hiroshima/

Truman:

That explanation pretty much jives with everything we know about what happened.

The explanation for Benghazi would be like Truman saying, "The explosion in Hiroshima was the result of spontaneous combustion. Nothing to see here. And now, back to your scheduled programming."

Bang's getting caught up in the, "Rah! We're at war! Rah rah rah rabble rabble rabble! That means we have to spread misinformation, because it helps our tactics! Rabble rabble!" But there's a difference about spreading misinformation about something that hasn't happened yet, and spreading misinformation about something that already happened. The former is a tactic. The latter is an attempt to shield certain people from accountability.

I don't personally care about Benghazi. If it's a scandal, it's pretty small beans IMO. But Bang's rationalization was clearly not applicable here.

Well, Bang's a big boy so I'll let him defend his "incredibly weak explanation".

But I think you're missing the point of his post (and several other posts he has made on this topic).

We don't need to know everything that is going on in the covert operations of the US intelligence agencies. Some people do, but it's not the blowhards who want to spit venom across the networks, be it Republicans, Democrats or Independents. Nor do the average Joe & his wife Lucretia. They simply don't need to know.

Lies, spies and covert ops belong to the experts. They do not belong in open hearings discussing the details of their operations.

[Wrong Direction]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/08/seven-things-we-learned-from-the-benghazi-whistleblower-hearing/?singlepage=true

7 Things We Learned from the Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing

1. There were multiple stand-down orders, not just one. Special operations forces were told, twice, by their chain of command not to board aircraft to Benghazi to rescue the Americans then under attack. The U.S. deputy diplomat, Greg Hicks, testified that the military commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, had his team ready to go twice. They were on the runway about to board a flight to Benghazi in the middle of the attack. They were ordered to stand down and remain in Tripoli to receive wounded who would be coming out of Benghazi. One of the orders came in the middle of the attack, the other came toward the end after Hicks’ team had traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi. The fact that Hicks’ team was able get to Benghazi before the end of the assault strongly suggests that the special operations team could have made a real difference.

At the same time, the State Department’s commander on the scene, Hicks, ordered his personnel into Benghazi and went there himself. Hicks testified that Gibson never told him who issued the stand-down orders. He commented that Gibson told him that the military stand-down was a shock: “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than someone in the military.”

Hicks also testified that the U.S. government never even requested military overflight to support the Americans in Benghazi. The U.S. had an unarmed drone overhead and could have gotten permission to fly fighters over the scene, at least, but never asked.

2. Ambassador Stevens’ reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up. Hicks testified that Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi to fulfill one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s wishes. Despite the fact that security was worsening in Benghazi for months leading up to the 9-11 attack, Clinton wanted to make the post there permanent.

...

3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway. Hicks also testified that he was shocked when Ambassador Susan Rice blamed a YouTube movie for inspiring the 9-11 attack. He testified that he had briefed Secretary Clinton directly via phone at 2 a.m. and told her that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He never mentioned a YouTube video, which he never once believed had anything to do with the attack. But Clinton shocked him by blaming the movie on Sept 12. She would blame it, again, while standing before the coffins of the slain Americans, on Sept. 14. During the attack, Clinton told Hicks that no help would be on the way to relieve the Americans under sustained assault.

4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence. Hicks testified to a pattern of behavior that leads to the reasonable conclusion that many officials within the State Department wanted him to remain silent after the Benghazi attack. He said that on the night of the attack he was personally commended both by Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama. But he later questioned why Ambassador Rice blamed the YouTube movie, and from that point on his superior, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones, questioned his “management style” and told him directly that no one in State should want him on their team in the field again. He was eventually demoted to a desk job after having been deputy to Ambassador Stevens, and remains in that post. Hick also testified that the Accountability Review Board, convened by Clinton last fall allegedly to determine the facts of the attack, never had stenographers in the room during his tw0-hour interview. Nordstrom concurred. Thompson was not even allowed to testify to the ARB despite having direct knowledge of the attacks due to his position on the U.S. Foreign Emergency Support Team. Thompson testified that the FEST was designed to go from zero to wheels up very quickly but was not deployed at all. He wanted to tell his story to the ARB, but was not allowed to. Hicks also testified that for the first time in his career, the State Department assigned a lawyer/minder to attend witness interviews with the ARB. He also testified that Jones told him not to be personally interviewed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican House member who was investigating the attack on behalf of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee. It all adds up to a pattern of witness control and intimidation.

5. “The YouTube movie was a non-event in Libya.” Hicks directly testified that the YouTube movie, for which a man remains in jail, was not in any way relevant to the attack in Benghazi. Why Obama, Clinton, Rice et al blamed that movie for the attack remains an unanswered question. Hicks said that no American on the ground in Libya that night believed the movie was to blame. He also testified that there was no protest prior to the attack. When the attack began, he was in Tripoli. He texted Stevens, who was in Benghazi, to advise him of the riot in Cairo at the U.S. embassy. In that riot, jihadists had stormed the walls and replaced the American flag with the black flag of Islam. Stevens had not been aware of the Cairo situation at all, but shortly after Hicks texted him about it, Stevens called and told Hicks that the Benghazi consulate was under attack. He never mentioned a protest.

Hicks also testified that blaming the movie had strongly adverse real-world effects. According to him, it humiliated Libya’s president, who had correctly stated that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Blaming the movie, Hicks said, did “immeasurable damage” to our relations with Libya and delayed the FBI investigation. On Sept. 12, Ambassador Susan Rice told the first of her many untruths, claiming in an email that the FBI investigation into the attack was already underway. It would not actually get underway for 17 days after the attack, by which time the scene of the attack had been compromised and contaminated.

We still do not know who decided to change the original CIA talking points and blame the movie, but the finger is pointing directly at Hillary Clinton. She was briefed by Hicks during the attack, the movie was never mentioned, but in her first public statement on September 12, she blamed the movie. Her subordinate, Ambassador Susan Rice, also blamed the movie the following weekend. The fact that Obama himself blamed the movie repeatedly, though, strongly suggests that he took part in the decision as well.

6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) set the tone for the Democrats’ angle on the hearings in his opening remarks. He used his opening to attack the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, and to pre-question the witnesses. ...Instead, they delivered speeches or blamed budget cuts, an argument that has already been debunked by the State Department itself. One sadly hilarious moment came during Rep. William Clay’s questioning. The Missouri Democrat blamed the repeated denials to enhance security at Benghazi on budget cuts. Issa reminded him that the State Department has debunked that line, in the person of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb. She testified last fall that budget cuts had not impacted the decisions not to enhance security at Benghazi. Clay claimed not to remember Lamb’s testimony, then moved quickly to cite the ARB, which backed his side. His selective memory proved politically, if not factually, reliable.

7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack. The Republicans, as I said, should have broken today’s hearing out across several days. When they did question the witnesses, they kept their speeches short and focused on getting answers. Their Democratic counterparts consistently gave speeches and raised red herrings. They were able to waste time and stall long enough for the Arias trial to push the hearing off the TV, and for energy to flag and boredom to set in. The Benghazi attack needs to be properly investigated by someone outside the political process and outside the Obama administration. State cannot be trusted; its own investigation failed even to interview Clinton. Defense may also have officers and political appointees to protect. A special prosecutor is in order and should be appointed.

[Predicto]

Wow, even a Pyjamas Media blogger's spin can't make this into a compelling scandal. I hope WorldNetDaily has someone who can do better.

[Bang]

But it's on the tatler!

or tattler, if english counts

~Bang

[Stadium-Armory]

Bang's theory is military necessity. (BTW Bang I think you are the only one I've seen anywhere and I mean not just in this thread that has that theory for their motivation in this case).

How about David Patreus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html?_r=0

David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

[Larry]

I love the "Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway."

Well, that settles it. If we've proven a negative (wonder how we did that), and we've proven that she was never personally informed something by one particular person, then well, clearly, she just made it up.

[Stadium-Armory]

A piece from the opinions section of today's post makes the same case as Bang:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/09/the-real-lesson-of-benghazi/?hpid=z2

What’s the real lesson of Benghazi? It’s that the party-aligned press works so well for Republicans that they’ve become too lazy to bother explaining their ideas, or doing the hard work of actual oversight.

Look, it’s May, and they’ve been at this since September, and still, no one outside of the conservative information bubble has any idea what the “there” is. Never mind whether the accusations are true; no one has even bothered laying out a set of accusations that makes sense (see Marc Ambinder for more; see also also Andrew Sabl for what a real set of accusations would look like).

Remember, to begin with, Benghazi was a policy disaster: Four people died, and there’s every possibility that it didn’t have to happen. A normal political party could get some mileage out of that (yes, it’s crass, but that’s politics). In fact, the political system depends on the out-party demanding that the president, the White House, and the executive branch in general be held to account when things go wrong.

Instead, we’ve had months of gobbledegook about a set of talking points that supposedly were part of an effort to…you know, I don’t even want to bother. What matters is whether there were mistakes made that caused the disaster, whether people who made those mistakes were held accountable, and whether things have changed to make another disaster less likely. Unfortunately, Republicans don’t seem very interested in any of that.

Part of what’s happening is, as Jamelle Bouie pointed out today, the strong demand within the conservative marketplace for scandal. But there’s more than that; it’s not just a demand for scandal, but how easily the customers accept anything presented to them. The result — and Alex Pareene is very good on this today — is that they don’t bother putting together a “coherent or convincing narrative.

Pareene usefully contrasts Benghazi and other Obama scandals to the Bill Clinton scandals of the 1990s. One key difference, however, is that there was no Fox News through much of the Clinton presidency — the GOP-aligned network signed on in 1996 and didn’t pass CNN in viewers until 2000. That meant that in order for a story to reach a really mass audience, or at any rate to get beyond Rush Limbaugh, it had to be sold to the neutral press. True, a lot of those Clinton scandals were pretty nutty anyway, but many of them were at least coherent.

With Obama, there’s no need for these scandals to make sense; the conservative press will run with them either way. And there might even be an advantage to incoherence. After all, if the accusations are gibberish, the neutral reporters will tend to ignore them — and then conservatives can go on conservative talk radio and Fox News and charge the rest of the press of ignoring these extremely important charges.

All of which means that Republican politicians have little incentive, and perhaps even some real disincentives, for doing the hard work of government oversight — or even the hard work of first-rate scandal-mongering. No wonder they get lazy!

Unfortunately, that leaves us with hyped-up accusations, but no real government oversight — no one really probing for real mistakes, or even real malfeasance, from the Obama Administration. There’s just no reason to bother. And that leaves everyone worse off — except perhaps those reaping profits in the conservative marketplace.

[Larry]

Admiring the irony of someone who can make this claim:

There is no longer any any dispute that the President, Secretary of State and likely the UN Ambassodor were lying, and continued to lie for weeks afterward.

Who can then read this thread, and come to the conclusion of:

Ok so I see we have generally come to an agreement on this board that they did lie. Correct?

I consider myself, well, maybe not a connoisseur of irony, but at least a loyal customer of it. And this is some good stuff, here.

[deejaydana]

Wow, even a Pyjamas Media blogger's spin can't make this into a compelling scandal. I hope WorldNetDaily has someone who can do better.

Some outlet has to cover it. I doubt that earlier piece is filled with lies (though no doubt it's filled with opinion).

[Wrong Direction]

This is what I think happened.

1. The mission in Benghazi came under attack.

2. The Ambassador called for help.

3. The call got to Clinton.

4. Clinton immediately notified the President.

5. The President asked for recommendations from his national security team on a response.

6. In that back and forth, someone mentioned the risk of using the military to respond. The words Black Hawk Down were probably used.

7. President Obama, ordered his national security team to not respond militarily; effectively leaving them there unprotected during a known attack.

8. Hillary passed the word that special forces, close enough to respond, should stand down.

Then, the next day...

1. The Obama team, knowing the serious nature of the attack, met to discuss messaging.

2. They invented the entire story about a protest in response to the video.

3. Despite using the words acts of terror one time and very non-specifically, Obama, Clinton and Rice knowingly went on a messaging tour where they lied to the American people and the world: Rice on national TV shows, Clinton at the funeral itself, Obama in speeches and at the UN.

4. Obama's messaging campaign were so focused on the video, Romney and his idiot team missed that Obama used the words acts of terror one time after the incident. Obama's team recognized this and astutely told Candy Crowley.

5. Candy Crowley's "correction" of Romney was devastating, and caused a complete misperception of all of the lying Obama, Clinton, Rice and their surrogates had done after the terrorist attack.

6. All of the Democrat spinsters continue, to this day, to come up with excuses about the lies. They rely on Patraes - the man who quit because of a very shady wife-mistress scandal right after that testimony. They blame Republicans for the funding issue, despite testimony to the contrary. They ignore the witness silencing. The reports that special forces were positioning themselves to help. The numerous speeches about a video causing all of this. It seems to me that a whole lot of people have their heads in the sand because it's their side that's pulling this off.

[Stadium-Armory]

This is what I think happened.

#1 and #2 are facts. I haven't seen any evidence to support the rest of that story.

[AsburySkinsFan]

#1 and #2 are facts. I haven't seen any evidence to support the rest of that story.

It's the use of "probably" and the other simply made up bullcrap in his timeline that makes it so convincing.

[chipwhich]

This thread should be a study in college courses in irony

Maybe the best thread ever.

[Redskins Diehard]

For every Republican trying to "stick" something to the "Administration"(or wink wink on Clinton) there is a Democrat that is thoroughly committed to playing the best defense they can. Fact is serious mistakes were made leading up to, during, and in the aftermath. Some of these mistakes probably cost the lives people out there doing our bidding in a dangerous place. It's a shame that it is more important for people that their "team" come out on top...whatever that means. This whole thing is like a discussion between a Rangers fan and Caps fan over whether or not the Ovechkin hit was a penalty.