Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not the conclusion of the CIA, Senate or House investigations.

So what? Those investigations did not confirm, or prove, that it was a spontaneous protest or that the video was the cause. If you're going to require Proof, where is your proof that the video was the cause. The first CIA reports from those on the ground reported a terrorist attack and that it appeared likely that al Qaeda linked terrorists were involved. That was changed later deleting reference to al Qaeda, convenient for the administration talking points, by the CIA director in order to suposedly "protect" classified information. In the House investigation, General Ham, at the time of the attack said that defense officials did not believe the attack was from an out-of-control demonstration and had no evidence of it. And that it was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. He relayed his info to Sec. Def. Panetta who then relayed it to Obama. Panetta said he never thought it was a protest but that it was a terrorist attack. But the emphasis of the administration talking points laid the blame on the video. And it maintained that emphasis for weeks even though the evidence was contrary.

The problem here is that you're reading judicialwatch, a conservative website run by conspiracy theorists that has a process of using FOIA requests to get "raw data" which they then take out of context and make wild claims to discredit the Administration amd stir the pot.

The problem here is that your whole sentence sounds like a uncorroborated conspiracy full of wild claims to discredit Judicial Watch.

In the same breath of the 10 day planning "finding" they also argue the CIA was shipping arms to Syria which the House Intelligence Committee found ZERO evidence of.

Well, you make claims for which there is ZERO evidence. Anyway, zero evidence is often in dispute regarding what is considered evidence. And, further anyway, no evidence is not proof. Neither is evidence proof.

And no-one, except God and Spence always gets it right.

And what is your proof, again, that the video was the motivation for the attack

Originally Posted by spence

There's nothing in this article that wasn't cited in government reports, and nothing that confirms this was a planned attack.

One of the few things actually confirmed in the investigations to which you like to refer, is State Dept., headed by H. Clinton, incompetence. In this article and those investigations, there is certainly no confirmation that the attack was not planned. The Obama admin. now classifies it as an ORGANIZED terrorist attack. There is such a thing as spontaneous organization in nature and to some degree in human affairs. But the implementation of it, once it occurs, requires some discussion, bargaining, and planning. There is certainly a strong implication of planning when a human activity is referred to as organized.

Just because some people including actual al Qaeda members with connections are involved, doesn't mean it was instigated, led or otherwise carried the signature of al Qaeda,

Doesn't mean it wasn't. And it is a "signature" of al Qaeda when some of those involved are not only either actual al Qaeda members or affiliated to al Qaeda and directly in contact and coordination with al Qaeda in other matters

quite to the contrary, the NCTC and DIA analysis cited in the Republican led House Intelligence report that it was rather uncoordinated and sloppy leads in the opposite direction.

The Senate investigation said that the attack didn't require significant amounts of preplanning. And much of al Qaeda hit and run attacks are sloppy and minimalist in planning. And none of that leads in the direction that there was no planning. Quite the contrary, when the totality of what is known, or testified to, is summed up, the notion that the attack was purely spontaneous is ridiculous.

So, in the broader picture, "What difference does it make" if the video had anything to do with the attack or not? The video was not necessary. It may have made it more convenient as a motive to stir up others to do damage to U.S. interests and to help, even in a little way, to eventually bring down the U.S. backed Libyan govt. Do you doubt that without the video, there would have been an attack?

Again, what is your "equation" as to cause and effect re Benghazi? You're the one who brought up the notion of an equation. Is your version a(the video)=x(the attack)--the video being the sole reason for the attack? Or are there other causes a+b+. . .=x? And if b were to be Islamic "extremism" which promotes various x's worldwide on a fairly regular basis, would a(the video) be necessary for an attack to occur?

And what about the even broader picture, the attempt to have a low profile of American power and influence as a matter of good will so as to pump up the Libyan govt's. feeling of control? Thus not providing more security (even though the CIA increased its security in the annex) which would be a visible presence of American power, control and interference. And the having a perception that al Qaeda was "on the run," not a threat to be protected against, in spite of various warnings and attacks, and the departure of other embassies due to the growing violence and threats which the Senate investigation concluded should have been a trigger to either increase protection of the mission or, even more so, to disband and remove it?

And the further failure of policy in supporting the overthrow of Ghaddafi leading to the predicted instability and violence, a repeat of Bush's so-called failure in Iraq?

And oh, by the way, why are you so comfortable with the idea of Hillary telling a parent of one of those killed in the attack that she promised to prosecute the video maker, even though his video was not illegal. That sounds psychopathic or sociopathic to me as defined in psychology: "Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality."

About the only thing I can think of which needs the video to be the motivation for the attack, is to use it as a cover to deflect from that only thing confirmed by "investigations," the administration's failed policy--which is what actually, and eventually, led to the Benghazi attack.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, you make claims for which there is ZERO evidence. it's part of the routine

Hillary telling a parent of one of those killed in the attack that she promised to prosecute the video maker, even though his video was not illegal. That sounds psychopathic or sociopathic to me as defined in psychology: "Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality."

About the only thing I can think of which needs the video to be the motivation for the attack, is to use it as a cover to deflect from that only thing confirmed by "investigations," the administration's failed policy--which is what actually, and eventually, led to the Benghazi attack.

starting to see a pattern over time yet? defend the indefensible..the list is long.... and supports a sociopath/psychopath for president.... troubling and probably not curable

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

One of the few things actually confirmed in the investigations to which you like to refer, is State Dept., headed by H. Clinton, incompetence. In this article and those investigations, there is certainly no confirmation that the attack was not planned. The Obama admin. now classifies it as an ORGANIZED terrorist attack. There is such a thing as spontaneous organization in nature and to some degree in human affairs. But the implementation of it, once it occurs, requires some discussion, bargaining, and planning. There is certainly a strong implication of planning when a human activity is referred to as organized.

Sure the State department made mistakes, nobody is discounting that, but they were described as systemic mistakes. Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary? Did Clinton direct any structural changes that complicated the interdepartmental communication?

The findings were that nobody was derelict in their duty...

Also, yes, it's not been "proven" it wasn't planned in advance but there's significant evidence that it also wasn't and our intelligence agencies have at times believed the video was a motivator.

Well, you make claims for which there is ZERO evidence.

Like what?

And no-one, except God and Spence always gets it right.

God is certainly wrong on occasion.

And what is your proof, again, that the video was the motivation for the attack

I've never claimed there is "proof" but there is substantial evidence that it could have been, evidence that was accepted by government analysts and relayed to the Administration.

The Senate investigation said that the attack didn't require significant amounts of preplanning. And much of al Qaeda hit and run attacks are sloppy and minimalist in planning. And none of that leads in the direction that there was no planning. Quite the contrary, when the totality of what is known, or testified to, is summed up, the notion that the attack was purely spontaneous is ridiculous.

You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

Additionally, It's not hard to believe that well armed and experienced militants couldn't get this attack together in a few hours.

So, in the broader picture, "What difference does it make" if the video had anything to do with the attack or not? The video was not necessary. It may have made it more convenient as a motive to stir up others to do damage to U.S. interests and to help, even in a little way, to eventually bring down the U.S. backed Libyan govt. Do you doubt that without the video, there would have been an attack?

There certainly could have been an attack in the future, but without the video scandal and a chance to derail a presidential campaign this entire story becomes far less substantial. If the video was a motivator, even if just influencing the timing or providing encouragement then a lot of the Administration criticism is baseless.

This by the way, is exactly what the ARB, Senate Intel and House Intel reports suggest.

And what about the even broader picture, the attempt to have a low profile of American power and influence as a matter of good will so as to pump up the Libyan govt's. feeling of control? Thus not providing more security (even though the CIA increased its security in the annex) which would be a visible presence of American power, control and interference.

The initial low profile in Benghazi was the desire of Amb. Stevens, not directed by the State Department. The failure to adequately increase security to match the threat environment has been studied and changes made to improve the process.

Why doesn't this have to mean there was a scandal? Oh yes, Clinton.

And the further failure of policy in supporting the overthrow of Ghaddafi leading to the predicted instability and violence, a repeat of Bush's so-called failure in Iraq?

If you were holding Bush to the same standard as you're holding Clinton he would have been invalid for a second term...or worse.

And unlike Bush, in Libya the United Nations had legal authority.

And oh, by the way, why are you so comfortable with the idea of Hillary telling a parent of one of those killed in the attack that she promised to prosecute the video maker, even though his video was not illegal. That sounds psychopathic or sociopathic to me as defined in psychology: "Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality."

First off, this was not a public statement so I don't know what she really said. Secondly, on the day (Sept 14) she allegedly said that the CIA analysts were pointing to the video as a key motivator for the attack.

If that was the case one would assume the DOJ would be looking for any legal justification to go after the film maker, which they found, and he was arrested...

Shame on the woman for trying to console a grieving parent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure the State department made mistakes, nobody is discounting that, but they were described as systemic mistakes. Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary? Did Clinton direct any structural changes that complicated the interdepartmental communication?

The findings were that nobody was derelict in their duty...

Also, yes, it's not been "proven" it wasn't planned in advance but there's significant evidence that it also wasn't and our intelligence agencies have at times believed the video was a motivator.


Like what?


God is certainly wrong on occasion.


I've never claimed there is "proof" but there is substantial evidence that it could have been, evidence that was accepted by government analysts and relayed to the Administration.


You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

Additionally, It's not hard to believe that well armed and experienced militants couldn't get this attack together in a few hours.


There certainly could have been an attack in the future, but without the video scandal and a chance to derail a presidential campaign this entire story becomes far less substantial. If the video was a motivator, even if just influencing the timing or providing encouragement then a lot of the Administration criticism is baseless.

This by the way, is exactly what the ARB, Senate Intel and House Intel reports suggest.


The initial low profile in Benghazi was the desire of Amb. Stevens, not directed by the State Department. The failure to adequately increase security to match the threat environment has been studied and changes made to improve the process.

Why doesn't this have to mean there was a scandal? Oh yes, Clinton.


If you were holding Bush to the same standard as you're holding Clinton he would have been invalid for a second term...or worse.

And unlike Bush, in Libya the United Nations had legal authority.


First off, this was not a public statement so I don't know what she really said. Secondly, on the day (Sept 14) she allegedly said that the CIA analysts were pointing to the video as a key motivator for the attack.

If that was the case one would assume the DOJ would be looking for any legal justification to go after the film maker, which they found, and he was arrested...

Shame on the woman for trying to console a grieving parent.

"Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary?"

I believe she was the first Secstate to use the particular email system in her basement.

Also, she was personally the one (well, one of the ones) who kept flip-flopping about the root cause of the attack. You have stated that every time she stated the cause, it was based on the latest credible intelligence she had received. Yet you offered exactly no proof of that, which means you don't have any. Also, by a stunning coincidence, all of her public statements blamed the attack on the video, thus implying that she could not have foreseen that attack (despite the fact that other agencies and the Red Cross foresaw this exact threat).

Do you see the pattern here Spence? You take everything she says at face value, with no skepticism, no demand for proof. Everything that makes her look like a liar, you categorically deny, regardless of the supporting evidence.

Then she testified "what difference does it make" what the cause was? In other words, if the cause was a planned attack, she looks like an incompetent liar, so let's drop the subject and talk about things that really matter, like the war on women and ATM fees.

Spence, isn't there another totalitarian nitwit out there that you agree with on every single issue, who doesn't have the scandals that she has, that you could get behind?


If you could show us a chain of intelligence reports, where her flip-flops timed exactly with when the CIA kept changing its mind about the cause, i would never bring this up again.

But if you coulda, you woulda.

I don't doubt there are differing reports. But what clearly happened, was that she chose to rely NOT on th elatest report, but on which report gave her th ebest political cover at that time.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I believe she was the first Secstate to use the particular email system in her basement.

Versus the living room? Totally different issue and largely irrelevant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Versus the living room? Totally different issue and largely irrelevant.

It was a joke. You asked if she installed any new systems, and she did - in her basement. But she wasn't th efirst Secstate to use a personal server.

As to the flip-flopping on the cause.

Rubio called her a liar, flat-out, in the GOP debate.

Now, if she was always basing her statements on the latest intelligence, no one can fault her for changing her tune, right? But if that were the case, she would have shown that evidence by now, because then it's a non story. If every single one of her flip-flops was the result of a new intelligence report (which said, "I know what we told you yesterday, but disregard that, because we have new intel"...), then no one can blame her for flip-flopping.

Th efact that she hasn't shown a timeline that shows that her statements were always based on the latest report, tells all of us that there is no such connection. At every moment in time, she probably had some reports that said it was the video, and some that said it was planned.

What all fair-minded people conclude, is that she based her statement-d- jour not on the most recent credible report, but on whichever report gave her the best political cover at the time, if she felt she needed any.

That's what is deplorable. It's beneath the character requirements for the job she seeks.

Then there's that whole sniper fire thing. And her claim that Bill didn't cheat on her, but was rather the "victim", naturally, of the GOP who was framing him. How can you defend THAT? Do you think she honestly believed, at the time, that Bill was innocent, and that the GOP was framing him? Or do you think she knew she was lying?

Spin that any way you want.

And I think she's close to un-beatable unless she gets indicted, which is extremely unlikely.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Rubio called her a liar, flat-out, in the GOP debate.

Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.

You like facts right?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.

You like facts right?

What facts are you using to disprove that Hillary didn't lie, Spence?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Something he will regret if he makes it further. The facts aren't on his side.

You like facts right?

Which facts, exactly, aren't on his side?

If Hilary has a timeline of when she got the differing reports, and that timeline shows she was always relying on the latest report, then she is not lying. But the only one saying that, is you. I said this before, I'll say it one last time. If you have the proof that she was simply relying on what she was told every time she flip-flopped, let's see it. If it holds water, I will be the first person to say we can't blame her for the fact that the intelligence community kept telling her to change her tune.

But you haven't shared any such facts. Neither has she. There's only one reason why that is.

Spence, the woman is a serial liar. I was shot at by snipers. Bill didn't cheat on me, the GOP just made it look that way.