Have you made yourself aware of the conclusions set forth in the House Armed Services Committee latest interim report concerning the Benghazi terrorist attack in their latest published assessment?
Why does Fox keep referring to the media? they ARE the media. SMH
I read part of this but one thing that jumps out is that it expresses the opinion of the majority members. The three named are Rep.
I have to question it's validity as it is opinion and the reduction in funding for embassy security again by Reps also bothersome.
It's says Obama, Clinton sent Rice out to lie for political reasons because the election was approaching.
Bwa ha ha ha!
Who would even suggest such a farce? Oh, that's right. A 'news' organization trying to do something for their (losing) guy because an election was approaching.
I... Am embarrassed to say I don't know what you're talking about.
Update: Just saw the link. Now I'm embarrassed to admit I need some sort of cliff notes because this is going over my head.
I had not. Thanks for the link. I just read it, and found nothing in there a surprise. I especially liked that both the President and Congress were mentioned as needing to get their sh*t together before it happens again. Can't argue with that.
With so many high ranking officers being replaced with hand picked Obama followers, I don't respect or believe any excrement coming out of DC. We are in a world of hurt, with all sides trying to cover their own if not someone else's collective A$$es.
The House Armed Services Committee is...what? Too Obama-ish for you?
The reports actually contradicts many of the original talking points from the Obama administration.
"Terrorist attack" opposed to "spontaneous protest" which came from the CIA talking points
Hmm, I'm not sure how that is a contradiction.
Then what is it?
Where is the smoking gun? In the whole report, does it say specifically who was at fault? Someone made several bad decisions. It would be simple to to state the facts on 1 8-1/2" x 11" piece of paper. Instead we get convoluted, superfluous verbiage.
Pol, it's a comprehensive assessment a year and a half after the fact. I'm not surprised at all that it would be different than anything issued days after the attack.
Nonetheless, let's see how this is reported by our favorite news outlets...if it is at all.
Now that you've seen it, keep an eye out for reports on your trusted news sources and how it is reported.
The problem is that I don't think it was a honest mistake. Hicks and this report indicates that many instinctively thought the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.
1) why wouldn't you say "we don't know for sure, the investigation is pending, but we think it's related to events that have been happening in several different countries over the past few days", until the investigation was initiated?
RJ, it was reported on Fox tonight on the Hannity Show. He interviewed a congresswoman who served on the committee who wrote this report.
2) what relevance is there to what or when they said what they said?
Hannity...well that's what I get for not tuning in tonight. serves me right.
RJ, are you suggesting what Susan Rice should have said?
^^^^response to 1)...
In any case, I have a ruff day ahead of me tomorrow. Good talking with you!
2) "What difference does it make?" It matters because if Hillary or Obama knew otherwise that Benghazi was a terrorist attack then we were lied to.
Good night, RJ! I have a snow day tomorrow!
A Giant Cluster F***
I want to hear from Pannetta.
Hes the key. Also Susan Rice and Killary again
What's wrong with this report?
It is sad it took over a year to investigate this. Part of the problem was that we didn't get the little bit of information from Hillary and the whistleblowers until about 4-6 months after the incident.
By 'we' you mean you and other Fox News viewers that 'reported' on this without the facts?
RJ, I have not read the entire document, but I don't see anything wrong with it.
"We" = American people
Well I think there were too many "reports" made (on an hourly basis) concerning issues without the facts. It might have been wise for an organization representing themselves as news to have verified facts first.
But I'm old fashioned, I guess.
We still did not get the "full report". And yes RJ we got our news from Fox because they are the only ones who ever talked about it.
Exactly my point. They talked about it. Over and over and over and over, without the facts. And that's the problem.
They were just being fair and balance! :)
RJ - the facts were not presented thats why Fox kept bringing it up. Killary said nothing during testimony. Ambassador asked for security for three months several times and was denied. The 3 witnesses that came forward were demoted and not allowd
To speak without Killsrys lawyers in tow. FBI did no inspection till 3 weeks after the fact when site was compromised. Obama told the world at the UN two weeks later that it was a video even tho was told by Panetta that night it was a terrorist
Attack. I could go on and on but very little media coverage on MSM was given and when it was Fox was spoken about more than anything. The next day
less than 12 hours later Obama was campaigning in Vegas. Witnesses were thereted and one guy
Was left on a roof top for 21 hours waiting for help who is still in WR today due to severe injuries. But you are right. I have no facts
What a load of drivel. No, you don't have the facts. And you sound like a child when you say Killery. More than 10 Benghazis happened under Bush, where was the faux outrage then? Again and again faux talking points get discredited. So many
Ignorant people still believe the 60 minutes version of the story, even when 60 minutes themselves no longer stand behind it. The only one which blood on their hands are the "fiscal conservatives" in congress who refused to fund the requested extra
I can't even finish reading that thing...
As in the question
The truth has been obvious for a long time.
So, no need for the report?
Nah. I almost certainly won't bother either.
III contradicts the CIA talking points. I find that interesting. I am sure the committee that is investigating the CIA will question them on that.
IV does not help Clinton's reputation too much.
Since when is the state dept in charge of the military?
V shows the lack of communication, and I am confused how one could not know their role.
Did I say they were, RJ? This is centered around the DOD.
Just wondering how IV has anything to do with Clinton.
Excuse me section II not IV because the ambassador requested security and he never received any.
7......pretty sure the answer is 7
Well then here you go...
I'll read It tonight