re: GOP Led Report Debunks Right-Wing Media's Benghazi Hoax

That would be you, since I responded specifically to your posts. The DC instead of the DS was used for a reason, and with effectiveness. Now, did you read the report and appendices or not?

Here it is, it's in 12 parts, need to read/download all of them to get the entire picture of the report:

LINK

quote:

---

DC, have you read the report and appendices? That would be a yes or no question.

---

There is no way he read it. Appendix 1 blows his entire argument out of the water.

quote:

---

And to Germans me on this after the right wing lies this board has pushed is fricking comical.

you people really are complete hacks

---

A glorious meltdown

quote:

---

Here it is, it's in 12 parts, need to read/download all of them to get the entire picture of the report:

LINK

---

Thank you for the link. I looked for it when the story broke but couldn't find it. So far the executive summary is pretty one sided. Is there a particular section that you found interesting?

The State Dept. lied about the nature of the assault and the assailents with the clear intent of influencing the election. The setting up and knocking down of strawmen doesn't exonerate HRC.

quote:

---

The State Dept. lied about the nature of the assault and the assailents with the clear intent of influencing the election. The setting up and knocking down of strawmen doesn't exonerate HRC.

---

The House report disagrees wholeheartedly. (Unless you can find me something)

Extra security was requested, but denied.

The ambassador and 3 others were killed in an attack. The reason he was at Benghazi in the first place was never fully explained (and sketchy). In any event, the attack was by a terrorist group, NOT a mob protesting a youtube video (that did happen in Cairo, but not in Benghazi). The administration knew this had nothing to do with the video DURING the attack itself. Protestors do not have crew served weapons such as mortars and machine guns.

The administration, despite knowing it was an attack, chose to lie to the public - NOT to protect sensitive information, but to protect the President's narrative during a re-election campaign.

The administration has NEVER shown any sort of contrition or even acceptance over the above facts, particulalry, and will even reach back to almost double down on the video claim as somehow plausible, even though it never was.

Facts do not equal a hoax.

It's odd watching you side with the GOP.

quote:

---

What is truly amazing is no one on the right can articulate exactly what the scandal is

---

They lied in an attempt to confuse events in Cairo with the events in Benghazi, to avoid the appearance Stephens had been killed in a terrorist attack, but rather "workplace violence" (holding onto that theme to the bitter end). They continued to lie, obfuscate, mislead, etc., to protect the narrative of the election for weeks. They even had the maker of the youtube video arrested (albeit on other charges) to further this narrative. Then they fought disclosure of various details surrounding the various responses from State and DoD during and immediately after the attack.

That's the scandal.

The concern has been that a robust rescue attempt was aborted due to political considerations, but that would have been a separate scandal altogether. As the evidence developed, there does not appear support for such a conclusion, although that's sketchy, as are the reasons forwarded for Stephens to have been in Benghazi in the first place.