BENGHAZI: MILITARY COULD NOT HAVE SAVED STEVENS, REPUBLICANS ADMIT

TREY GOWDY, CHAIR OF THE NEW HOUSE INVESTIGATION INTO BENGHAZI , SCREWED UP AND TOLD THE TRUTH DURING A FOX NEWS INTERVIEW ON MAY 17th...

THE MILITARY COULD NOT HAVE REACHED THE CIA COMPLEX IN TIME TO SAVE AMBASSADOR STEVENS AND SMITH.
 

"The chairman of the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, said on Tuesday (MAY 17, 2016) that military reinforcements could NOT have reached the besieged diplomatic outpost in time to prevent the killings of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

The panel’s chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, told Fox News: “Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there’s any issue with respect to that. THEY COULDN'T. The next question is: Why could you not? Why were you not positioned to do it?”

The House Benghazi investigation is now thoroughly discredited as a partisan sham.

Oct. 12 2015
"House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy—said too much about the actual purpose of the committee. “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable,” McCarthy said to Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

The words were there: The committee wasn’t about finding the truth behind the attack in Benghazi; it was about tanking Clinton ahead of the election.

McCarthy’s comments helped kill his bid for House speaker and prompted new attacks from the Clinton campaign, which released a national ad slamming House Republicans. “Republicans finally admit it,” said the ad, “Republicans have spent millions attacking Hillary..."

ONCE AGAIN, THE POOR, DUMB GOP CONGRESSMEN CUT THE THROAT OF THEIR OWN PARTY!

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN-LED HEARING COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI, ALONG WITH THE GOP's TOP ATTORNEY, FINALLY ADMITTED THE TRUTH, THAT THE MILITARY WAS IN NO POSITION TO HAVE ARRIVED IN TIME TO SAVE STEVENS AND SMITH THE NIGHT OF THE ATTACK.

WILL THAT END THE QUESTIONING, THE COSTLY TAXPAYER-FUNDED ENDLESS INVESTIGATIONS?

NO!

NOW THEY'RE GOING FOR THE THROATS OF THE MILITARY, DESPITE THE FACTS HANDED THEM BY THE BRAVE SURVIVORS OF THE ONE CIA-HIRED SPECIAL OPS TEAM WHO DID ARRIVE IN TIME FROM TRIPOLI TO SAVE STEVENS...

 FIVE SURVIVORS WHO HAVE ALL STATED IT WAS THE CIA STATION CHIEF WHO HELD THEM UP FOR 25 MINUTES AFTER THEY ARRIVED, 25 MINUTES THAT COST THE TWO LIVES LOST, THE TWO MEN, STEVENS AND SMITH, WHOM THE CIA AGENT ASSIGNED TO PROTECT STEVENS ABANDONED TO MAKE HIS OWN ESCAPE TO THE ANNEX.

The San Diego Union-Tribune interviewed three of the CIA security contractors -- Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen -- on Jan. 11 while they were on a press tour through San Diego.

THEY DID NOT SPEAK KINDLY OF THE CIA AT THE BENGHAZI COMPLEX AT ALL.Question: Will we ever find out who in fact did give the stand-down order?

Tiegen: Bob (CIA station chief) gave the stand-down order.

CONGRESS IS TOO SCARED OF THE CIA TO GO AFTER THE REAL CAUSE OF THOSE 4 DEATHS THAT NIGHT.

IF WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE "DIRT" THE CIA PROBABLY HAS ON EACH AND EVERY CONGRESSMAN, PERHAPS WE CAN SEE WHY THEY HAVE TRIED TO HANG THIS ON EVERYBODY BUT THE GUILTY ONES.


“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years,” the committee’s top-ranking Democrat, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, said in a statement. “The central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons was wrong.”

“Those who want to believe the worst will believe the worst,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, a committee member who has been critical of the investigation into Benghazi. “Those that want to believe that this is a partisan exercise will believe it.” "A former Republican staff member on the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, has dropped a lawsuit that alleged he had been dismissed in part because he objected to the panel’s focus on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

.Bradley F. Podliska, who is a major in the Air Force Reserve, stated that he “was being singled out because of his military service and because he was unwilling to go along with the hyper-focus on the State Department and Secretary Clinton.” 

The new complaint asserts that the committee’s Republican staff leaders discriminated against him because he had to take two leaves of absence after being mobilized by the Air Force.

Peter Romer-Friedman, a lawyer for Mr. Podliska, said on Friday that the changes did not mean that Mr. Podliska was recanting his criticism of the focus of the committee’s investigation."

The New York Times followed with a major story that detailed the degree to which “the focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to the politically charged issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.” 

What’s more, according to the Times, this was a particular preoccupation for Boehner, who pushed the committee to focus on Clinton’s emails.

PODLISKA IS BY NO MEANS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN WHO WAS SICK AND TIRED OF THE SAME OLD UNPROVABLE LIE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS INVOLVED IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER THE BENGHAZI RAID.

GOP REP. 'BUCK McKEON WAS THE ONE WHO RELEASED THE 450+ PAGES OF ONCE "SECRET" TESTIMONY OF ALL THE PENTAGON BRASS AND OF OTHER MILITARY AND STATE DEPARTMENT MEMBERS WHO WERE IN BENGHAZI THAT FATEFUL NIGHT.

THE FULL BRUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY AS TO WHAT ORDERS WERE GIVEN, THE ONLY ORDERS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, LAY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE PENTAGON.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES NO ORDERS FOR U.S. TROOP MOVEMENT.
 
LEON PANETTA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS OR INACTIONS OF THE MILITARY THAT NIGHT.
HE WAS MOST DEFINITELY IN THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND, NOT CLINTON.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOW CRITICIZING AND HEAD-HUNTING THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE PENTAGON TOP BRASS WHO HAVE SOLIDLY STATED NO ONE ISSUED STAND-DOWN ORDERS TO ANY OF THEM, THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN COMMUNICATE WITH CLINTON OR ANYONE ELSE IN 'STATE' DURING THE ATTACK.


~Congressional Investigation #3: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

"The Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report in January 2014 calling the Benghazi attacks "preventable."
The report also faulted intelligence officials for not relaying information on the CIA annex to the U.S. military."But no one within the CIA was faulted ENOUGH for Congress to raise hell about that, right?
~Congressional Investigation #4: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs "The House Committee on Foreign Affairs later released a report criticizing Clinton and other high-ranking officials who they said were "provided extensive warning of the deteriorating security environment in eastern Libya."

BUT THE 30 OR SO CIA AGENTS RIGHT THERE IN BENGHAZI WHO WERE MOST AWARE OF THE "DETERIORATING CONDITIONS" NEVER ONCE SUGGESTED MORE U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT, MORE MILITARY SECURITY.

THE CIA WAS THERE BEFORE STEVENS WAS NAMED AMBASSADOR.
THEY KNEW EXTRA SECURITY WAS NEEDED WHICH IS WHY THEY HIRED SO MANY LOCALS AND 'MERCENARIES'.
THEY WERE HIDING SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WANT THE U.S. MILITARY OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO GET INVOLVED IN!

THE CIA HAD "GONE ROGUE" IN BENGHAZI, WERE INVOLVED IN THINGS THAT CONGRESS WAS SHOCKED TO DISCOVER! "The intelligence community (CIA) "also had information that there were no protests outside the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks, but did not incorporate that information into its widely circulated assessments in a timely manner," according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report."

WRONG!
THE CIA INITIALLY HANDED "INTELLIGENCE" TO OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS THAT THERE WERE PROTESTS PRIOR TO THE ATTACK, BUT CHANGED THEIR TUNE WHEN CONGRESS LEARNED THEY HAD VIDEO OF THE DAY AND NIGHT OF THE ATTACK.

"Sept. 24, 2012: The CIA changed its assessment of the attacks after determining that no protests occurred outside the Benghazi facility before the attacks."

THE CIA WITHHELD A LOT OF THINGS, FROM EVERYONE, AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.WHEN THESE THINGS BEGAN TO COME OUT, ONE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN LOUDLY AND REPEATEDLY PROTESTED EVEN THE MENTION OF THE CIA ANNEX THERE.

COULDN'T BE THE CIA AT FAULT, HAD TO BE CLINTON!
THEY BLINDED THEMSELVES TO FACTS THROWN RIGHT INTO THEIR STUPID FACES!
Many Libyans condemned the attacks and praised the late ambassador.

They knew Stevens from BEFORE he was named ambassador as someone who was fighting for Libyan self-rule, as a man who loved the Libyan people.
WAS IT STEVEN'S LOVE FOR LIBYA THAT GOT HIM 'FRAGGED'?

WAS IT BECAUSE HE WAS PRO-LIBYAN SELF-RULE THAT HE WASN'T WELCOME BY THE CIA?

The Libyans who admired Stevens staged public demonstrations condemning the militias (formed during the 2011 civil war to oppose leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi AND FUNDED BY OUR GOVERNMENT) that were suspected of the attacks.


THE CIA HAD A VIDEO OF THE ATTACK THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC, ONE WHICH THEY KEPT EVEN FROM THE "INVESTIGATORS" IN CONGRESS, STATING THEY WERE 'REVIEWING' IT THEMSELVES.
WHY HASN'T CONGRESS SHOWED US THAT VIDEO?
WHERE IS THAT VIDEO NOW?
WHY AREN'T REPUBLICANS TALKING ABOUT THAT?

~Congressional Investigation #5: The House Committee on the Judiciary"The committee released its findings in April 2013 as part of an interim progress report in conjunction with the five other Republican-led committees investigating Benghazi.

The report detailed how the FBI did not investigate the scene until three weeks after the attack and spent less than one day collecting evidence in Benghazi."

They still criticized Clinton, but not the CIA? 

~Congressional Investigation 6: The House Committee on Armed Services

"The Republican-led committee bashed the Obama administration’s failure to address security threats in Benghazi, asserting that the military was unprepared for possible violence in Libya."

Yeah, but the committee didn't know one of their own would release the testimonies of all military who testified to them!

Once released, those 30 hours of sworn testimony only showed that the military had said all along that NO ONE issued a stand-down order to them...nobody, not Obama, not Clinton, nobody had! HOW DEAD-SET WERE THE GOP CLOWNS TO PIN THE WRAP ON OLD HILLARY?
THIS MUCH...
"The Republican head of the House’s Armed Services Committee issued a statement sharply criticizing the testimony of his own party’s star witness in the latest hearing on Benghazi only minutes after the session concluded.
Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell (ret.) was the key witness at today’s hearing, the latest in a string of inquisitions from Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) into Benghazi since the 2012 tragedy.

During his testimony, Lovell raised eyebrows by insisting that the U.S. did not try to save the Americans stationed in the eastern Libyan city.
“The discussion is not in the ‘could or could not’ in relation to time, space and capability, the point is we should have tried,” Lovell, who served at U.S. Africa Command’s headquarters in Germany the night of the attack, told the panel.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), however, took issue with the contents of Lovell’s testimony, issuing a release dismissing the suggestion that the military could have acted to halt the attack in time to save lives.

“I appreciate the service of Brigadier General Robert Lovell and his willingness to testify,” the release from McKeon, chair of the Armed Services Committee, reads."

THE MILITARY SAID THEY COULDN'T HAVE BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE TRIED AND THE GOP BLAMES....WHOM?
CLINTON.

AND STILL THE GOP HAS PERPETUATED THE MYTH, THE FAIRY TALE THAT ALL FOUR MEN DIED IN BENGHAZI BECAUSE CLINTON, WHO WAS NOT IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, ISSUED A STAND-DOWN ORDER.

~Congressional  Investigation #7: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

[Intelligence? Where? Who?]
"The House Intelligence Committee concluded its two-year Benghazi investigation in November 2014 when it released a report exonerating the Obama administration of wrongdoing in its response to the attack. The report found evidence of contradicting intelligence among government officials and concluded officials did not intentionally mislead the public with information in the days following the attack." 
There was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement.

NO CRIMINALITY, NO WRONGDOING.

Obama exonerated but not Clinton?
Oh, yeah, Obama isn't "running" this time, Clinton is.


~Ongoing Investigation #8: The House Select Committee on Benghazi
[DEAR GOP, WHEN WILL IT END???]
The Republican-led House created the House Select Committee on Benghazi in May 2014 after a conservative watchdog group discovered new State Department emails about the attacks. The committee includes seven Republicans and five Democrats.

THEY WERE BUSTED BY ALL THOSE TESTIMONIES WHO SAID THAT STAND-DOWN ORDER WAS A LIE! 

BUSTED, BECAUSE ONE OF THEIR OWN MADE SURE WE COULD SEE WHAT THE MILITARY HAD TOLD THE MORONS ON THE COMMITTEE AND RELEASED TRANSCRIPTS OF 30+ HOURS OF MILITARY TESTIMONY.

BUSTED, BECAUSE ANOTHER OF THEIR VILLAGE IDIOTS HAD BRAGGED TO THE PRESS THAT HE AND THE OTHER GOP MEMBERS HAD STOPPED CLINTON FROM WINNING THE ELECTION BY HAMMERING AT HER WITH THE "INVESTIGATIONS" UNTIL HER 'NUMBERS' DROPPED IN THE POLLS.
AGAIN, THEIR FAULTY LOGIC, THEIR COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE AVERAGE VOTER WILL COME BACK TO BITE THEM.

WHEN ALL THIS HAS SUNK INTO THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC, CLINTON'S 'NUMBERS' CAN ONLY RISE AGAIN.

THE BACKLASH IS ALREADY BUILDING.

HAVE THEY  HANDED HER THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF THEIR ATTEMPTS TO BEAT HER, TO USE TAXPAYER MONEY TO HELP TRUMP WIN?

NO.
CLINTON WON'T WIN.
IT JUST ISN'T IN THE CARDS.

BUT IF THE BUFFOONS OF THE GOP HAD SIMPLY LEFT THIS ALONE AFTER THEY REALIZED THERE WAS NO STAND-DOWN ORDER FROM ANY DEMOCRAT, THE MARGIN OF VICTORY FOR THEIR RACIST BIGOT TRUMP WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATER.

WHAT A SORRY CHOICE!
A SOCIALIST PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, OR A TOTAL WACKO RACIST LIAR?
REALLY, AMERICANS?

IS THAT THE BEST WE CAN EVER HOPE FOR?

PICK THE LIAR OF YOUR CHOICE?

OR IS IT THAT OLD CLASS WAR STILL AT PLAY?

LET'S PICK THE ONE WHO WILL RID US OF THE DAMNABLE POOR, THE MINORITIES, ALL WHO DON'T FIT THE MOLD OF "MANIFEST DESTINY" AND ELITIST RULE?

OR MAYBE....

LET'S PICK THE ONE WHO WILL LEAD US FURTHER DOWN THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD THAT WILSON AND FDR LAID DOWN TO IRREDUCIBLE, ETERNAL DEBT WHICH WILL KEEP OVER HALF OF AMERICA AS SLAVES AND WORKER DRONES TO THE ALMIGHTY "JOB-GIVERS" AND BANKERS, BLESSED BE THEIR NAMES?

REALLY, AMERICANS?

VOTE FOR THE SOCIALIST WHO LIES ABOUT HELPING THE UNDERPRIVILEGED TO GET VOTES (THE DEMS NEVER HAVE MADE A DENT IN ELEVATING THE POOR, WHY START NOW?) OR VOTE FOR THE ONE WHO SAYS HE'LL GET RID OF ALL UNDESIRABLES?
THAT'S THE CHOICE WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE WITH?
REALLY?

AS SOMEONE NAMED LILY ALLEN SANG IN A POPULAR SONG:
"____ YOU VERY MUCH".
THE LESSER OF TWO LYING, SCUM-SUCKERS IS STILL A LYING SCUM-SUCKER.

HOWEVER, WHICHEVER ONE WINS, THE VOTERS WILL GET EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVE.
AGAIN!
AND AGAIN!

BEND OVER AND SMILE ONE MORE TIME.... HERE IT COMES....ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF THE SAME, NO MATTER WHO WINS, BECAUSE THOSE "RUNNING" ARE DAMNABLE LYING TRAITORS TO THE CONSTITUTION, TO ALL OF US, JUST LIKE THE ONES BEFORE THEM. 

AS SOON AS THEY TAKE OFFICE, ALL "CAMPAIGN PROMISES (AKA, LIES) WILL BE HISTORY, SAME AS ALWAYS.THE ECONOMY WILL CONTINUE TO TANK, AS ALWAYS.WE'LL EITHER STILL BE IN THIS STUPID MIDDLE EAST "WAR" OR WE'LL CREATE NEW ONES.
THAT'S WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT DOES.

WE'LL STILL BE LOSING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, OUR LIBERTY, OUR FREEDOM, OUR PRIVACY, SAME AS ALWAYS.

THE RUT AMERICAN VOTERS GOT INTO OVER 60 YEARS AGO HAS BECOME THE GRAVE WE BURY THIS NATION IN.

THAT KIND OF RAW STUPIDITY REALLY TICKS ME OFF. 


----------------

BTW, HERE'S WHERE TO START LOOKING AT ALL THE LIES BY BOTH MISERABLE EXCUSES FOR CANDIDATES.http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Trump's statements by FACT-CHECK ruling:

Click on the ruling to see all of Trump's statements for that ruling.

• True 3 (2%)(3)
• Mostly True 9 (6%)(9)
• Half True 21 (14%)(21)
• Mostly False 22 (15%)(22)
• False 62 (43%)(62)
• Pants on Fire 28 (19%)(28)

2% TOTALLY TRUE?
YUP.
--

AND HILLARY?
23% TOTALLY TRUE?
NO BLOODY WAY!

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

Clinton's statements by ruling:

Click on the ruling to see all of Clinton's statements for that ruling.

• True 46 (23%)(46)
• Mostly True 55 (27%)(55)
• Half True 42 (21%)(42)
• Mostly False 32 (16%)(32)
• False 3 (11%)(23)
• Pants on Fire  3 (1%)(3)

WHICH LIAR WILL IT BE?
A LIAR BY EITHER NAME, BY EITHER PARTY, IS STILL A LIAR.