Official Benghazi Topic Till The Year 2018+

And who's claiming that the IRS mess isn't a scandal?

There were no protests in Benghazi; that was the point. If you listened to the hearings, the officials that were involved in real time that testified said the closest protest was in Tripoli. They found the mention of protests as the cause to be "appalling."

I don't know what the motives were for covering up that it was an attack. Fill in the blanks how you please, it will not be the truth though. The only way to find out the truth is to ask those involved. The only way to be political is to ignore that it happened because you might not like the answers.

What is that about anyway? IS that a recent thing i missed cause of The Boston Marathon parade and BENGHAZIBENGAZIBENGHAZI?

Im truly asking but, the last bit was being facetious at best :<

It wasn't covered up, in the actual transcripts of the news conference he called it an attack. Did you not watch that debate where they debunked that ridiculous talking point too?

The only way to be political is to act like it matters and hope that the republicans poke Obama in the eye enough to where he goes "OKAY! I ORCHESTRATED THE ENTIRE THING AND IM A MUSLIMCOMMIESOCIALISTKENYAN!" Then the Republican party has a slight gasp and cheers in joy like New York after WW2 ended and the "I KNEW IT!" statements come out.

By the way, where the *** is Cairo and Tripoli if you dont mind telling me.

Veering away again. Whatever.

Intel wasn't 100% accurate after 4 whole *** hours?! Escándalo!

after 4 hours and saying twice "details are up for change as information arises" Skandal!

And weeks later when they continued to propgate the lies about a protest outside of the consulate spinning out of control.

They watched the attacks in real time. You don't know this? It lasted nine hours, the assault on the consulate. You don't know this? They knew what happened as it happened.

YOU do, but you are not the typical low-information voter. It's not about whining about the media, but identifying the players and educating others. I don't know anyone who "runs to FOX News", and I don't know to whom they would run. FOX has plenty of liberals and most segments are debates with both sides represented. Most conservatives are conservative because they are more self-reliant, so "running to" anyone else for comfort isn't really an adequate characteristic. It's not like we are the ones trying to throw up dirt for everything we can think of that Bush did to try to avoid dealing with 0bama and his failures and scandals.

Nine hours that supposedly was not enough time for an F-16 that has a top speed of over 1500 MPH to fly the 1000 miles from Aviano in Italy.

So would you have liked them to go all FOX news fast-action-no-facts-for-views style reporting every 5 minutes about an ongoing investigation? Yea you would, then you can blame Osama Bin Ladin as he strikes the Americans from the grave cause you know, some people still believe he isnt dead. The same people that believe that believe all this highly outrageous *** of a campaign attack. Bush watched 9/11 in real time but only after the planes hit the trade center did he mobilize the military and i dont even think he himself did that. Then, theres the fact that we knew MONTHS ahead of schedule, probably YEARS actually, that there was going to be an attack but made NO preparations to avoid the event itself. You want to talk about they did nothing for 9 hours (which is a lie) try not doing anything for MONTHS to YEARS about a known terror threat. Then, prop up the attack as a reason to invade daddies old nemesis and play it off as "lookin fer terrorists" while letting Osama and his officers go on MULTIPLE occasions.

THAT is a scandal that was deemed a non-issue by the american public that was ACTUALLY a scandal and an impeachable offense.



and how would this have helped get 4 people out of an embassy under siege? Bet that would've been nice plastered all over the news at how 4 embassy employees and the attacks where killed in american sanctioned bombings of libya too.

The IRS is a scandal, its just not a partisan scandal. No one likes the IRS, they are pretty much viewed as the enemy to every tax paying American, Republican or Democrat. So no, its not going to come back to Obama or anyone outside of the actual IRS. The IRS chief resigned, people will go to jail. The IRS will look bad, and they will continue to be hated. Its not going to impact anything.

Dude. Why are you so obsessed with Fox News? And what news, in your opinion should everyone get their information from?

Edit: For Enu

So you all can stop bandying about misguided attempts at factual analysis....

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

I know some people like to use sources that aren't fact checked... mainly because it reinforces their presupposed notions of party culpability and reality.

So, from a site that exists to check facts, the facts.

Enjoy.

I quoted directly the CIA unedited talking points.

Edit: Fact check my crack. I'm tired goodnight.

That is simply not true. It is ABSOLUTELY partisan. They targeted conservative and Jewish groups. That makes it partisan and anti-Semitic. Pro-0bama groups (including his half-brother) received red-carpet treatment. Remember Harry Reid acting as though he had Romney's confidential tax information? Even if 0bama cannot be tied to it, it should stand as a stark warning to everyone to be cautious of big government. That hurts the Democrats.

Remember, Nixon wasn't the one who broke into the campaign office. I personally think 0bama's fingerprints will be found all over this, but that is not required for any of these scandals. It's like they say, "It's not the crime that gets you - it's the coverup."

I am far from obsessed lol. Keep using them buzz words and dodging the topic there bro.

This article reinforces your quotes, but actually puts them in context and denounces this stupidity. Please continue to be delusional and a spoon fed idiot.

lol If you want to say a lie and have nobody question it, call yourself a "fact checker".

http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_141905/Factcheck_org_--_A_Fraudulent_Fact_Check_Site_Funded_By_Biased_Political_Group.html

Just a blog, but sums up a lot of accurate info that is easily verifiable.

Also,
http://theswash.com/commentary/who-fact-checks-factcheck-org

Yes, a blog. A highly opinionated wall of text too. The other one assumes site puppeteering from the Obama administration, and is again an opinionated wall of text.

Next thing you know, Wikipedia is a reputable source and Youtube is the great incarnation of "Gotcha!" investigation procedures. Wait.

Also, if you go to the home page fact-check has a good 6 or so stories up that dig into Obama as well.

You linked two glorified blogs in response to an organization whose purpose is to check factual statements. Tenshi, I'm not sure if that's a rather lame attempt to troll of just an example of extravagant dementia. Either way it precludes further conversation about anything remotely related to or revolving around reality.

With that said...

Even though some people are intent on being serious in here they're still the butt of a joke. The OP had a stroke of genius!

The IRS scandal deals with organizations who claimed non-profit status under 503(c) of IRS tax code. This allows political orginizations to be non-profit as long as they mainly do "social welfare".

Since the IRS consolidated one side of their business in cincinnati some of the "low level" people there drew up a list of criteria to screen for. Tea party and other words were added. Over 300 groups were tagged, no one was not allowed to receive non-profit status, but quite a few orginizations withdrew applications afterwards.

That is what I can remember, but I've been out of touch for days with an exam.

Thank you, ill have to do some research on that more at a later time :<

This is ignorance, first of all, yes the F-16s top speed is around that, but basically for it to reach that speed it has to be flying in optimum conditions and probably unarmed. But it can't sustain that speed for very long due to the fact you would be out of gas in about 300 miles. Max range without refueling at cruising speed is probably 2000 miles with fuel pods. Cruising speed for most F-16s is around 250-350 MPH. Flying at higher speeds cripples the range of that airplane, especially since you need those fuel pods (ie can't drop them).
Aviano to Libya in a scramble situation is definitely not realistic, it would probably take an hour to get the plane off the ground, (we don't have pilots on alert anymore) and for the fighter to get there in time, you would need a midair refueling, maybe 2, which in this situation, is impossible. Its just not feasible, the F-16s would have needed to be on station to be of any use.

I've been gone hours. Why didn't this down-spiral further and get locked?

You are trying to mask the fact that you don't know what is going on with condescension and polysyllabic words (so you feel smart).
Research the Annenberg Foundation, who owns FactCheck.org.

Based on your pathetic excuse for logic, I will just assert that I am a fact checker, and therefore any opinion you have is an "example of extravagant dementia". You can't call yourself a fact checker and be wrong. I read it on the internet.

(That was sarcasm, just so you are clear.)

No idea, but we've presented actual facts, so it will end shortly.

uh, you have to ask that?

Thank you. I should have known something like this existed ~.~

It was rhetorical.

You don't need a refueling for a 1000-mile 1-way trip unless you mean prior to its return whichcould be done over the Mediterranean. Even if I stipulate to a 1-hour waiting period plus minimum 250MPH, that is about 5 hours. Keep in mind that they didn't know they had X amount of hours. If we had them in mid-flight and they were told all the people whom they would be protecting were already dead, it'd be a different story. I won't debate military logistics further than that because I don't know much more about them, and because I know that those turn into less nerdy Kirk vs. Picard endless debates lol...

I love news sites that link primary documents. Other ones cause me to yell at my computer :(


Testimony from Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/george_testimony.pdf


Bbc article