Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Benghazi part seven 16
After all, it was covered by all the media, wasn't it?
Well, at least the conservative-leaning paper in DC covered it.
The report dents many of the claims some Republicans have advanced, including rejecting the claim that CIA security officers were told to âoestand downâ and not try to rescue State Department personnel at the diplomatic compound under assault, and that the White House forced the CIA to alter talking points to delete references to a terrorist attack.
But go ahead, ask for another investigation. We don't really have anything better to do with billions of dollars, do we?
the top Democrat on that committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, said Fridayâ(TM)s report should close the books on the CIA talking-points part of their inquiry.
âoeAfter an exhaustive bipartisan investigation that spanned nearly two years, the House intelligence committee now unanimously agrees that the CIA talking points reflected conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the attacks and that there is no evidence that the intelligence community shipped arms to Syria,â Mr. Cummings said in a statement.
âoeBased on these unanimous, bipartisan findings, there is no reason for the Benghazi Select Committee to reinvestigate these facts, repeat the work already done by our Republican and Democratic colleagues, and squander millions of additional taxpayer dollars in the process,â he said.
Yeah (Score:2)
"the claim that CIA security officers were told to 'stand down'"
I mean, the claim was that the DoD was told to stand down, and we still haven't heard from General Carter Ham [snopes.com], for all Snopes doesn't support any of the accusations, either.
I fall short of 100% confidence in anything publicly available on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
I fall short of 100% confidence in anything publicly available on the subject.
And you likely won't have "confidence in anything publicly available on the subject" until it leads to the demise of at least how many democrats?
It occurs to me that one capital piece of hypocrisy on the matter is conveniently overlooked consistently. Remember 9/11 (of 2001)? Of course you do, it is party mantra for you to invoke it as often as humanly possible. I'm sure you can recite from memory exactly how many heroes died on that day.
Re: (Score:2)
And you likely won't have "confidence in anything publicly available on the subject" until it leads to the demise of at least how many democrats?
I guess it's impossible that I'm interested in the unvarnished truth, instead of some added "body count"?
Did you ever question any of the results of that investigation, for even a moment? I have never seen you do so.
To make your analogy meaningful, you'd have to have had a U.N. Ambassador, say, John Bolton, go out there and blow 88 miles of rectal sunshine up the public backside, and then had Bush debate Kerry with something all over the moderator's chin trying to cover Bush's six on the topic.
But this is not a serious attempt on your part; no, it's your usual wanton obfuscation.
The Good News is that, in Eternity,
Re: (Score:2)
And you likely won't have "confidence in anything publicly available on the subject" until it leads to the demise of at least how many democrats?
I guess it's impossible that I'm interested in the unvarnished truth,
What qualifies you to look at all of these reports and declare that none of them are the "unvarnished truth"? How would you ever be able to identify such a thing if it were in front of you? Each successive report has had a larger population of politicians from your party in it than the one before, and yet they have each come to essentially the same conclusion.
Considering Benghazi is just your favorite of dozens of different conspiracy theories that you have happily parroted here in the desperate hope
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry that I have hurt your feelings so quickly that your emotions force you to say such things.
Your sentence was complete at 'sorry'.
Re: (Score:2)
In your second comment [slashdot.org] you confirmed that you won't read the report regardless of who writes it.
In your third comment [slashdot.org] you turned the silliness up to 11 and walked away from the discussion while for some reason declaring yourself victorious.
Is it now just a race to see who can be the first to write a comment in a JE discussion that has nothing to do with the JE itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's impossible that I'm interested in the unvarnished truth, instead of some added "body count"?
Quite impossible, since your actions - or rather inaction - speak louder than any of your words claiming to want truth.
Notice that he has never defined what the hell he means by "unvarnished truth". He is, of course, demonstrated to be quite fond of moving goalposts, but this is a crowning moment for him. He particularly loves to apply that phrase to texts that he proudly refuses to read, so what it really means is anyone's guess - and he certainly isn't inclined to share that meaning here.
If you don't trust the public inquiries, take action and pursue a private investigation.
We've already had non-government investigations into this - and some of his other favorite conspiracy theories as well - and he appl
Let's hear you blame the tools again (Score:1)
Your JE is another example of your sloppy posting, just too lazy to make it look right, aren't you? Sloppy sloppy sloppy!
Re: (Score:2)
just too lazy to make it look right, aren't you? Sloppy sloppy sloppy!
Am I the lazy one, or are the slashdot programmers the lazy ones? It's not like the code for these characters has changed in the past decade or so; slashdot just likes to stick out from the rest of the interwebs (and not in a good way here) in their lack of support for it.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Perfect! You are more predictable than my bowels
thankyoueverymuch!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can be whatever you want, or join the army and be all that you can be. But your slovenly posting habits will be always up for discussion :-)