Congressional Report finds no scandal in the Benghazi case!!!

Hey Whirly do you know how many millions of taxpayer dollars that was spent investigating this bogus allegation?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08...t-finds/200318

Fox News has gone silent on Benghazi amid reports that the House Intelligence Committee concluded that there was no intentional wrongdoing in the Obama administration's response to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on August 1 that the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee voted to declassify findings from its investigation into the 2012 attacks on U.S diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, and "concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack," according to committee member Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA).

The intelligence community "did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened," the process used to create administration talking points was "flawed" but "reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis, and "there was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel," Ranking Member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA) said in a statement laying out the committee's findings.

It's a clinical, point-by-point refutation of the Benghazi hoax Fox has pushed for nearly 2 years.

Yet Fox News made no mention of the report on Monday.* In sharp contrast to its current silence, when House Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of a select committee to investigate Benghazi in June, Fox devoted at least 225 segments to the topic over just two weeks, an estimated publicity value of more than $124 million.

Fox's sudden lack of interest in congressional investigations into Benghazi comes less then one week after Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the select committee, announced - in what Fox News billed as an "exclusive" interview - that he would hold more public hearings on the attacks in September.

"The American people have not been given clear answers to things like Benghazi," Bill O'Reilly said Friday night on Fox. Monday night, O'Reilly's audience didn't learn the answers that the House Intelligence Committee declassified last week.

On July 31, the day the House Intelligence Committee adopted its report, Fox News signaled its intention to continue politicizing the Benghazi tragedy by immediately pivoting to Hillary Clinton.

"The Republican head of the powerful House Intelligence Committee told Fox News that there was no intelligence failure and that all roads lead to the State Department," Herridge said on America's Newsroom.

Hours later, the conclusion that there was no intelligence failure had evaporated from her reporting. "The chairman of the House Intelligence Committeee says, Hillary Clinton's State Department has more explaining to do," Herridge claimed on The Kelly Report that night.

That assessment was based on questions answered long ago about who signs diplomatic cables at the State Department.

* Media Matters searched transcripts provided by TVEyes.com for the terms "Benghazi" and "House Intelligence Committee."

UPDATE: On Fox's evening news program Special Report, the network finally noted the findings of the House Intelligence Committee report and that they were in line with past congressional investigations. Host Bret Baier noted that House Republicans are still looking to the upcoming House select committee as "the definitive word on the terror attack."

The "report" only says there was no deliberate wrong doing by the Obama administration leading up to the 2012 attack...the scandals surrounding Benghazi are in the aftermath of the attack...the congressional report doesn't draw any conclusions on those scandals.

Make no mistake, that report is coming......

Are you too dumb to understand that ?

BTW, I find it interesting that your MediaMatters story doesn't provide the reader a direct link to the Congressional Report that they are citing.........in other words, the reader is relying on MediaMatters to spin the Congressional study.......and did you realize that your MediaMatters story is about the SF Chronicle reporting on the Congressional Report.....

Pretty laughable, twice removed from the actual Congressional report, by 2 notably left wing news outlets.

And if you actually read the report findings it isn't good for Hillary...

The State Department had multiple advance warnings of possible attacks on the compound....the report also found that additional security was requested by the Benghazi team...the Hillary State Department ignored those security concerns and requests.

Benghazi will continue to be a thorn to Hillary and a failure on Obama's watch - Especially the video lies.

This is another example of what happens when naïveté and stupidity meet, which pretty well sums up the entire Benghazi affair.

"Let's send a Gay Ambassador to a region controlled by Muslim radicals who consider homosexuality an abomination punishable by death. Then, let's not beef up the security in our embassy, even though it is the anniversary of 9-11. These Muslims might get offended if they armed US Marines on "their" land. We certainly don't want to offend any Muslims now, do we?

Let's just pretend it's business as usual, because after all, even if something happens, we can just lie our way out of it the way we usually do, because everybody knows our supporters will swallow any swill we feed the".

Does that sound about right?

And don't forget, "let's campaign on the pretense that Al Qaeda is decimated" - knowing it isn't...but also knowing the media will play along with the lie.

This is another example of what happens when naïveté and stupidity meet, which pretty well sums up the entire Benghazi affair.

"Let's send a Gay Ambassador to a region controlled by Muslim radicals who consider homosexuality an abomination punishable by death. Then, let's not beef up the security in our embassy, even though it is the anniversary of 9-11. These Muslims might get offended if they armed US Marines on "their" land. We certainly don't want to offend any Muslims now, do we?

Let's just pretend it's business as usual, because after all, even if something happens, we can just lie our way out of it the way we usually do, because everybody knows our supporters will swallow any swill we feed the".

Does that sound about right? Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think you stated that pretty nicely,accurately too. You probably would make a good journalist. Of course you wouldn't land a position with delusional Liberal news outlets like MSLSD but of course there are others out there that would appreciate the point blank approach that you gave to this post, lol.


Jim

This is another example of what happens when naïveté and stupidity meet, which pretty well sums up the entire Benghazi affair.

"Let's send a Gay Ambassador to a region controlled by Muslim radicals who consider homosexuality an abomination punishable by death. Then, let's not beef up the security in our embassy, even though it is the anniversary of 9-11. These Muslims might get offended if they armed US Marines on "their" land. We certainly don't want to offend any Muslims now, do we?

Let's just pretend it's business as usual, because after all, even if something happens, we can just lie our way out of it the way we usually do, because everybody knows our supporters will swallow any swill we feed the".

Does that sound about right? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Gay ? did you suck his dick? There were no Marines in the embassy in Tripoli? Where do you come up with this ?

A member of the Serbian Consulate in Chicago and personal friend of Stevens' has suggested that Clinton has Stevens' blood on her hands because she knew that Stevens was gay, just as he did, and sent him to Libya.

I have my doubts about his being gay or if he was that the people in Libya knew it. He probably wasn't cruising the streets looking for Muslim homosexuals.

Who said there were no marines in Tripoli?

I would like wee-wee to tell us all EXACTLY what this bogus allegation is? Some many things have been said and alleged that we need a score card provided by wee-wee to know exactly what we're talking about.

To clarify for some of you, the building in Benghazi was a consulate and not an embassy. The consulate had no marines in it. All security was given to locals who turned out to (for some of them) the very group that attacked the consulate.

Political Thriller

The Ben Rhodes Story: How A Hack Writer Crafted the Benghazi Talking Points of a Lifetime
4:27 PM 08/03/2014



Republican South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee, said this week that no witnesses are off limits in his committee’s investigation into the Benghazi cover-up. So who will he subpoena? Here’s a suggestion: How about Ben Rhodes.

Ben Rhodes, the 37-year old little brother of CBS News president David Rhodes, is a national security adviser to President Obama. He also happens to be an Upper East Side literary type who took a Master’s in Fiction from NYU. Real serious artist. Rhodes was the one who edited the White House’s Benghazi talking points to focus the blame on spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video, rather than an al-Qaeda attack.

Ben even published a short story in the spring 2002 edition of Beloit Fiction Journal called “The Goldfish Smiles, You Smile Back,” about an extremely good note-taker who edits talking points. “Goldfish” appears to be Rhodes’ only credit.

So what went wrong, Ben? No takers on that screenplay you had rattling around in the glove compartment? Seed money running out and still couldn’t pop a weekend piece in Reader’s Digest? Find yourself on Gower Avenue staring in your empty coffee cup, listening to the air conditioner hum? Had to take a little day job in politics to tide you over? No shame in that.

One minute you’re sipping kambucha with your peer-workshop buddies, the next you’re in a suit working on “The YouTube Video Project.” Happens to the best of us. So tell us the story, Ben. Tell us of the YouTube video talking points. Spin us this tale of power, romance, and intrigue. This is your Washington thriller. Finally. Make it count.

Viral Crucifix By Ben Rhodes (Chapter 1: “Download of Death”)



Bm5TKp7CEAAX1em (1)
“Out of coffee and cigs,” Barack sighed, running a weary hand across his scalp. I could sense the momentum in the room shifting. We’d been up for hours, with still no workable premise and our deadline approaching. He stood and headed for the door, mumbling about picking up a bagel and a cup of black coffee. Youthful. Youthful. How do I do youthful? My specialty in grad school had been austerity. Density. I was out of my element. Then, suddenly, like the final orgasmic thrust of an unfaithful lover in a Paris motel, it came to me. “Wait. I’VE GOT IT.” Barack turned. “Mr. President, it was a YouTube video! It was a YouTube video!”



“A YouTube video. Such a brilliant MacGuffin. This is worthy of Fitzgerald, Ben. This is one they’ll remember us for.”


But our editors were skeptical. ”The ending doesn’t hold together,” they said. “What happens to the filmmaker? We can’t call him Nakoula Nakoula, thats absurd.”


Barack wanted it done and told me to feed it to the press. But I was unsure of myself. Was Nakoula’s prison experience derivative of The Count of Monte Cristo? And what of Candy Crowley? Was she a moral arbiter within the text, a la Steinbeck’s Casy, or was she more of a Greek chorus? Would the paperback crowd appreciate the contradictions in Susan Rice’s character? I needed more time.




“Then Hillary says, what difference does it make? The end.”…I finished like a bourgeois wristwatch salesman in the den of a Parisian whore. Barack thought for a moment, weighing my words silently along the glistening valleys of his lips. “That’s brilliant, Ben,” he finally told me. “They’ll love it.” Then with a conspiratorial grin, he leaned close to my tender ear. “Don’t tell Jay how it ends.”


My brother at CBS News would have to like this one, I thought. He’d have to. I yearned for his fraternal approval. We’d been through upwards of forty-seven drafts. But this one was commercial. This one was a hit.


“Then I watched wearily from the precipice of my own tortured understanding, response to that YouTube video,” I read for my colleagues in the briefing room, their stunned silence washing over my body like so many probing hands at a furtive French orgy. “Thank you.” They stood with gusto, their applause reverberating off the crescent walls. For that moment the humble White House seemed as grand and majestic as the 92nd Street Y.

“My dear Ben, we’re the new enfant terribles of the literary scene. We’re bigger than Tom Wolfe.”


“Gentlemen, we’re from Houghton Mifflin. We loved your story about the YouTube video. We’d like to sign you to a deal.”


Sometimes I feel like I’m back in that Carlyle Hotel room, rum on my moustache, typing those beautiful talking points. In each sound byte exploring a new facet, reaching a new understanding of my very self. Typing. Typing. Bounden and yet comfortable within the menageries cascading from my very masculine essence. In the common slang of Bastillian street walkers: les auteur.

Fin

What a tale, Ben. I’d love to hear you tell it to me in person. You don’t want to debut a work of this magnitude at Trey Gowdy’s underground spoken-word slam. You should workshop it first. In an article, say, for a political magazine.

So why don’t we throw on our corduroy jackets, meet up at the Fox Head and smoke some unfiltered cigarettes (I assume you roll your own?) Loosen up with a few PBR’s, flick Tom Waits on the jukebox, throw some game at the short-haired brunette at the end of the bar. Just like old times. I’m down if you are, buddy. I hear you’re no fan of D.H. Lawrence but I won’t hold it against you.

Tell me the story, Ben. We can write the novel together. You’ll come out the hero, I swear. Just set the scene. Tell me about the other characters in the tale. The whole Dickensian cast.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/03/th...#ixzz39dm89hKv

I would like wee-wee to tell us all EXACTLY what this bogus allegation is? Some many things have been said and alleged that we need a score card provided by wee-wee to know exactly what we're talking about.

To clarify for some of you, the building in Benghazi was a consulate and not an embassy. The consulate had no marines in it. All security was given to locals who turned out to (for some of them) the very group that attacked the consulate. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The building in Benghazi was a outpost, it was a state dept cover for a CIA gun deal. the security force of locals ran away when the attack occurred.

Now who believes in conspiracies? Still nothing from Wee-wee.

Libtards just don't get it. It isn't so much that it is a "scandal" but a blaring indicator of the ineptness of this administration when it comes to doing the right thing.

Libtards just don't get it. It isn't so much that it is a "scandal" but a blaring indicator of the ineptness of this administration when it comes to doing the right thing. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Over and over again

Libtards just don't get it. It isn't so much that it is a "scandal" but a blaring indicator of the ineptness of this administration when it comes to doing the right thing. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Let me get this straight...Lib's are to blame for "Benghazi" but you so called conservatives give Bush a pass on his rush to war in Iraq. Which do you think has done more harm to this country?