You have complained about "how many investigations" there were on Benghazi, which produced nothing, so I don't know which "investigation" you're referring to.

The Senate Report, as well as many others, said it was an organized terrorist attack which included individuals affiliated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As well, in many other reports, Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda allied militia, was involved. Many reports included the Mohammad Jamal network, headed by an Egyptian trained by al Qaeda. The Jamal network was in direct contact with Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, in 2011 and 2012, and conspired with AQAP, AQIM, and al Qaeda's leadership according to the U.S. govt. and the UN.

The House Permanent Select Committee, HPSI, said intelligence analysts and policy makers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding witnesses and senior military officials who testified that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks against U.S. interest. The report stated "why the administration sent Rice on to five Sunday talk shows with the talking points she had is a question beyond the scope of this report, and is, no doubt, a political question."

The HSPI report said that the CIA's Office of Public Affairs removed reference to al Qaeda in the second bullet of the original draft. And that the CIA should have challenged its own initial assessments about existence of a protest earlier. The Chairman concluded, among other things, that senior U.S. officials, including Hillary Clinton, perpetuated an inaccurate story that matched the administration's misguided view that the U.S. was nearing a victory over al Qaeda. Which contributed to the inadequate security protection in Benghazi. The chairmen claimed that Clinton received numerous reports of attacks in and around Benghazi yet did not approve repeated requests for additional security.

A N.Y. Times article, 11/20/2014, titled "Militants in Benghazi Attack Tied to al Qaeda Affiliate" was ironically co-authored by the Kirkpatrick who had previously written in The Times that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack. The article, in contradiction to what Kirkpatrick previously wrote, says that witnesses in Benghazi, as well as U.S. officials, say that Ansar al Sharia fighters played a major role in the assault on the Benghazi mission.

There are many more articles corroborating all the above, and which point out other various connections to al Qaeda and to the importance of al Qaeda affiliates in coordinating and leading the attack.

There is also this interesting information gathered by Judicial Watch which further points out the intentional deception regarding the video, etc. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ly-emerges.php

There is another Judicial watch discovery previous to the above one that indicates the administration was checking Google regarding about another video which they initially wanted to blame the attack on. I'm too tired and disinterested at this point to find it again. As you've said to Jim in CT--do the search--if you care to. Oops, never mind, found it quick--http://www.newsmax.com/TomFitton/Ben.../26/id/699133/

But if you insist on minimizing al Qaeda's involvement, especially its' affiliated "militants" leadership, remove al Qaeda as the constant variable cause in "the equation," and replace it with Islamic extremism. Or, simply, replace it with Islam. That works.

Everyone is missing Three key items:
1) The Secretary of State put people in harms way and failed to protect them adequately.
2) The Secretary of State ignored/"was not aware of" HUNDREDS of requests for more security from on of her direct reports.
3)The Secretary of State knowing and willfully lied about the root cause of the attack and stood by the fabricated narrative up until the day it became public that the real cause was known.

Any one of these items, never mind all three bring into question her ability to govern.

Lets say your child got beat up in the school yard after telling the teacher kids were after him or her and after the beating the teacher who was there at the time said she was distracted by another child when some thugs jumped your child even though on video the teacher saw the whole thing. You would do everything in your power to have that teacher removed... Why a different standard for someone sworn to uphold The Constitution?

I don't think anyone ever doubted the contribution of Ansar al Sharia, hell, 30,000 Benghazi's protested stormed their headquarters in response to the attack.

But you're trying to dodge the question. If previous al Qaeda behavior diminishes the potential role of the video, yet, it can't be shown that it was an al Qaeda attack, then what's the point?

Aren't you guys getting tired of this. :huh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dogs chasing their tails is how I view them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This place is going to be a nut house once Bernie is elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John will probably shut it down once Bernie figures how to tax site owners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh snap !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In another page everyone will agree and we'll never read about this again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

al Qaeda did attack. And that has been shown. That others may have attacked as well doesn't mean that al Qaeda didn't. Two "core" al Qaeda groups, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were part of the attack. And at least two al Qaeda affiliated groups, the aforementioned Ansar al Sharia and the Mohammad Jamal network, the latter being very closely allied with al Qaeda. And it has been shown that they had leadership roles in the attack. And it has been shown that the attack was planned, not spontaneous.

Well, if it was planned, who was in on the planning? Certainly not the supposed unaffiliated video-angry folks spontaneously deciding on a whim to destroy and kill. And if such folks were part of it, they were most likely egged on by others who were in control of the planning and execution of the attack. And how did al Qaeda and its affiliates just happen to come by fully armed with big weapons and all join in on the spontaneity? It's ridiculous to believe that Al Qaeda, some of its affiliates and some militia which had the same tactics and common ideology as al Qaeda just spontaneously coalesced into the attack.

And arguing over the silly proposition that it was a spontaneous attack, having nothing to do with previous al Qaeda behavior, or with core common ideological similarities of the "radical" Islamists involved in the attack is a way of deflecting from what many of us here have said are failed policies which should greatly "tarnish," to borrow a word from you, the political aspiration of H. Clinton.

You wonder at the failure of those who just can't see that the video can be a part of the equation, that it can be a co-factor since it has not been "proven" that it isn't. In the larger picture of failed policy and deceit, others wonder "what difference does it make" if it is or isn't, and why you must insist that it is.

In that you can't prove a negative, what is the importance of "some" spontaneity in the mix of a planned attack by al Qaeda-like groups and individuals? Other than, of course, to deflect from the broader picture of failed policy which was far more important in and causative of the attack.

You claim to have read all the reports. But there appear to be several reports that you haven't read, or as is your habit/tactic, just ignore as if they don't exist.

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

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.

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.

No, if Bernie is elected President, all fish will be renamed the same, all fishing types merged into one, and everyone will get one fish.


I am not sure if he used JW as a source but what he posted surely sounds like LWJ which if you have a shred of credibility will realize this is one of the best open source intelligence sources there is. Period. Full Stop.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...ence_on_al.php

You really do sound like the Huffington Post spokesgenerderneutral

There's nothing in this article that wasn't cited in government reports, and nothing that confirms this was a planned attack. Just because some people with connections are involved, doesn't mean it was instigated, led or otherwise carried the signature of al Qaeda, 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.

Where is the outrage over this ????

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...content=202603
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's how big government spends money Eben, don't worry, Bernie plans to greatly increase government obligations and spending which will probably eliminate government waste :smash:

Clinton wasn't involved? :huh:

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


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.

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

It's horrible, yet it is not even a rounding error on the problems we have with the budget NOW. Courtesy of EITHER party.

In other words, the National Debt is 418,604,651 over-priced Afghani Gas Stations

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.

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.

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?

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.

Shame on her for trying to console a grieving parent by saying she would prosecute a fellow American for making a video. For trying to direct whatever anger that was mixed in with the grief toward someone who was not guilty of the attack, and deflecting any notion the parent might have that State Dept., Hillary, failed administration policy, was more responsible than the video maker for the attack.

And I don't understand your rather cold-blooded, vindictive sounding logic that the DOJ should just go find something to go after the video maker. Something is wrong with that.