U
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
I wonder how many prisoners of war they tortured in Vietnam. I wonder how many women and children they killed. Those were war crimes, but American servicemen were seldom prosecuted.
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 7,410
So you fat fucks alt I see how cute.
U
unregistered
Guest
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Vetteman's finest amateur homoerotic prose, boys and boy-girls. For the discriminating connoisseur.
Like, literally discriminating.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif
As you might suspect, The_Trouvere takes extreme exception to the hot tar enemas that Miles has pumped into his long suffering asshole every time he posts.
Oh, it was senile dipshit talk.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Somewhere, we now see, their is a Marine hiding the truth.
Maybe he has been intimidated by the way the administration goes after whistle-blowers, the Tea Party, citizens, our allies, FOX...,
Maybe he has been intimidated by the way the administration goes after whistle-blowers, the Tea Party, citizens, our allies, FOX...,
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
There are plenty of Marines hiding the truth.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Congressman Wolf: Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements
Via the Weekly Standard:
“On Tuesday I raised the question of why none of the Benghazi survivors, whether State Department, CIA, or private security contract employees have testified publicly before Congress,” said Wolf.
“According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer.”
Wolf continued: “It is worth nothing that the Marine Corps Times yesterday reported that the Marine colonel whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa at the time of the attack is still on active duty despite claims that he retired. And therefore could not be forced to testify before Congress.“If these reports are accurate, this would be a stunning revelation to any member of Congress, any member of Congress that finds this out and also more importantly to the American people. It also raises serious concerns about the priority of the administration’s efforts to silence those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack in response.
We’ve seen the administration’s priorities. Blame the terrorist attack on a movie, repeatedly, to get past the election. In the weeks leading up to the election, convene a show panel of hand-picked loyalists which by design would fix any accountability for the attack well below the political appointee level. Have Clinton fixer Cheryl Mills run the internal operation to stop whistleblowers. Win election, declare that Benghazi was “a long time ago.”
Forcing survivors to sign NDAs under threat of losing their jobs fits well within this pattern of priorities. We may need a Truth Commission to get to the bottom of this administration’s activities and priorities.
Via the Weekly Standard:
“On Tuesday I raised the question of why none of the Benghazi survivors, whether State Department, CIA, or private security contract employees have testified publicly before Congress,” said Wolf.
“According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer.”
Wolf continued: “It is worth nothing that the Marine Corps Times yesterday reported that the Marine colonel whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa at the time of the attack is still on active duty despite claims that he retired. And therefore could not be forced to testify before Congress.“If these reports are accurate, this would be a stunning revelation to any member of Congress, any member of Congress that finds this out and also more importantly to the American people. It also raises serious concerns about the priority of the administration’s efforts to silence those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack in response.
We’ve seen the administration’s priorities. Blame the terrorist attack on a movie, repeatedly, to get past the election. In the weeks leading up to the election, convene a show panel of hand-picked loyalists which by design would fix any accountability for the attack well below the political appointee level. Have Clinton fixer Cheryl Mills run the internal operation to stop whistleblowers. Win election, declare that Benghazi was “a long time ago.”
Forcing survivors to sign NDAs under threat of losing their jobs fits well within this pattern of priorities. We may need a Truth Commission to get to the bottom of this administration’s activities and priorities.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Justice for Travon!!!!!!!
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Related: Despite Pentagon claims, Marine colonel sought in Benghazi investigation not yet retired. “Defense Department officials have told members of Congress that Bristol cannot be forced to testify because he retired after stepping down during a March change of command ceremony, according to several media reports. The Pentagon reinforced that point of view to Marine Corps Times on Tuesday. . . . That isn’t the case, however. While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media.” Kinda gives the impression they’re covering something up...............NO SHIT!
U
unregistered
Guest
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Looks like you've still got nothing on this.
For months, Republicans have accused the Obama administration of lying and omitting crucial information about Benghazi. In fact Republicans have done that, by sweeping aside the confusing facts and rumors that swirled on that tragic day.
Filmmaker Billy Wilder is credited with the quote “Hindsight is always 20/20,” although the quote is unsourced and may not have originated with him.
It’s also not entirely true. Mystery still swirls around many historical events. Some were not well-documented at the time, like the fire that devastated Montréal today in either 1763 or 1765. For others, important records have been hidden or lost. Playwright Christopher Marlowe was believed to have been killed in a drunken brawl in 1593, until 1925 when a newly discovered coroner’s report revealed a very different story.
Others were documented at the time, but people rejected the official story. The reasons may have little or nothing to do with the evidence, and the speculation (“Lizzie Borden took an axe/And gave her mother forty whacks“) may become better known than the actual verdicts. Borden was acquitted, but she was later suspected to be lesbian and public opinion turned against her.
Add in conspiracy theories, some later proved by evidence, others based on wishful thinking and a need for our chaotic world to make sense, and we find that hindsight is not always 20/20.
Still, the past is often clearer than the present, especially amidst the stress and chaos of violence. The phrase “fog of war” originated with this quote by Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz:
War is an area of uncertainty; three quarters of the things on which all action in War is based are lying in a fog of uncertainty to a greater or lesser extent. The first thing (needed) here is a fine, piercing mind, to feel out the truth with the measure of its judgment.
Such was the case on September 11, 2012, as armed men attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi at 9:40pm, four hours after protests began outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In the ensuing days, similar protests against a film about Islam erupted at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world.
I am not arguing the Benghazi attack was a protest that turned violent. We now know it was a planned attack. But that is 20/20 hindsight. At the time, with protests at U.S. diplomatic posts worldwide, it was not unreasonable to consider that Benghazi might be part of that pattern.
And that’s probably one reason Republicans consistently ignore those other protests when discussing the Benghazi attack. Bringing in those other facts – and they are facts – would muddy their claim that “everyone knew” Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
The parable of the blind men and the elephant is attributed to both Buddhism and Jainism. Regardless of its source, the story is familiar and apropos. Six blind men walk up to an elephant, each touching a different part. They then argue about what they have touched, each insisting that his experience is the full and complete truth. In the Buddhist canon Udana, the parable concludes:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
So it is with Benghazi. It may well be that former Libyan deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks suspected terrorism almost immediately. Other Americans in Benghazi and Tripoli may have suspected likewise. The terrorists attacking the consulate and its CIA annex certainly knew who they were and what they had planned.
But other Americans in Libya may have suspected otherwise, and Americans in Cairo knew the crowd outside the embassy were, in fact, protesting a film. Halfway around the world, conflicting and confusing information flowed into Washington. Other information, also conflicting and confusing, had been arriving in the weeks and months before the attack. Still more information, also conflicting and confusing, would arrive in the days and weeks after.
Republicans have since sifted through that mountain of conflicting and confusing information for the handful of reports that 20/20 hindsight supports, and they tell the story as if the rest of the conflicting and confusing evidence never existed. Oh, and if the information doesn’t fit their theory, they doctor it.
Meanwhile, even as the Benghazi consulate was still burning, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney conflated Cairo and Benghazi, criticizing the State Department for a Cairo press release that Romney framed as being part of the mythical Obama Apology Tour. And last week Peggy Noonan breathlessly insisted that “The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.”
Political factors clearly weighed in the White House response over the following weeks. But, again, Noonan and Republicans make that argument that in isolation … omitting the fact that Mitt Romney began politicizing Benghazi before the bodies had even been recovered. Like the protests happening in Cairo and elsewhere, and like the confusing and conflicting information flowing into the State Department and CIA, Romney’s shamefully political attack doesn’t fit the Republican story of Obama Lied To Steal An Election.
So Republicans just leave all of those inconvenient facts out of the story, lying by omission while they accuse President Obama of lying by omission. And that’s the real scandal of Benghazi.
Another vette thread destroyed!
For months, Republicans have accused the Obama administration of lying and omitting crucial information about Benghazi. In fact Republicans have done that, by sweeping aside the confusing facts and rumors that swirled on that tragic day.
Filmmaker Billy Wilder is credited with the quote “Hindsight is always 20/20,” although the quote is unsourced and may not have originated with him.
It’s also not entirely true. Mystery still swirls around many historical events. Some were not well-documented at the time, like the fire that devastated Montréal today in either 1763 or 1765. For others, important records have been hidden or lost. Playwright Christopher Marlowe was believed to have been killed in a drunken brawl in 1593, until 1925 when a newly discovered coroner’s report revealed a very different story.
Others were documented at the time, but people rejected the official story. The reasons may have little or nothing to do with the evidence, and the speculation (“Lizzie Borden took an axe/And gave her mother forty whacks“) may become better known than the actual verdicts. Borden was acquitted, but she was later suspected to be lesbian and public opinion turned against her.
Add in conspiracy theories, some later proved by evidence, others based on wishful thinking and a need for our chaotic world to make sense, and we find that hindsight is not always 20/20.
Still, the past is often clearer than the present, especially amidst the stress and chaos of violence. The phrase “fog of war” originated with this quote by Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz:
War is an area of uncertainty; three quarters of the things on which all action in War is based are lying in a fog of uncertainty to a greater or lesser extent. The first thing (needed) here is a fine, piercing mind, to feel out the truth with the measure of its judgment.
Such was the case on September 11, 2012, as armed men attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi at 9:40pm, four hours after protests began outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In the ensuing days, similar protests against a film about Islam erupted at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world.
I am not arguing the Benghazi attack was a protest that turned violent. We now know it was a planned attack. But that is 20/20 hindsight. At the time, with protests at U.S. diplomatic posts worldwide, it was not unreasonable to consider that Benghazi might be part of that pattern.
And that’s probably one reason Republicans consistently ignore those other protests when discussing the Benghazi attack. Bringing in those other facts – and they are facts – would muddy their claim that “everyone knew” Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
The parable of the blind men and the elephant is attributed to both Buddhism and Jainism. Regardless of its source, the story is familiar and apropos. Six blind men walk up to an elephant, each touching a different part. They then argue about what they have touched, each insisting that his experience is the full and complete truth. In the Buddhist canon Udana, the parable concludes:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
So it is with Benghazi. It may well be that former Libyan deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks suspected terrorism almost immediately. Other Americans in Benghazi and Tripoli may have suspected likewise. The terrorists attacking the consulate and its CIA annex certainly knew who they were and what they had planned.
But other Americans in Libya may have suspected otherwise, and Americans in Cairo knew the crowd outside the embassy were, in fact, protesting a film. Halfway around the world, conflicting and confusing information flowed into Washington. Other information, also conflicting and confusing, had been arriving in the weeks and months before the attack. Still more information, also conflicting and confusing, would arrive in the days and weeks after.
Republicans have since sifted through that mountain of conflicting and confusing information for the handful of reports that 20/20 hindsight supports, and they tell the story as if the rest of the conflicting and confusing evidence never existed. Oh, and if the information doesn’t fit their theory, they doctor it.
Meanwhile, even as the Benghazi consulate was still burning, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney conflated Cairo and Benghazi, criticizing the State Department for a Cairo press release that Romney framed as being part of the mythical Obama Apology Tour. And last week Peggy Noonan breathlessly insisted that “The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.”
Political factors clearly weighed in the White House response over the following weeks. But, again, Noonan and Republicans make that argument that in isolation … omitting the fact that Mitt Romney began politicizing Benghazi before the bodies had even been recovered. Like the protests happening in Cairo and elsewhere, and like the confusing and conflicting information flowing into the State Department and CIA, Romney’s shamefully political attack doesn’t fit the Republican story of Obama Lied To Steal An Election.
So Republicans just leave all of those inconvenient facts out of the story, lying by omission while they accuse President Obama of lying by omission. And that’s the real scandal of Benghazi.
Another vette thread destroyed!
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
the CUNT and the NIGGER lied
of course
Latest on BenghaziGate – Gen. Ham Bombshell + Not-So-Retired Marine Commander Will Testify Before Congress
Drip, drip, drip….
The General who was in charge of AFRICOM on the night of the Benghazi attack has gone on the record to say that it was clear that it was terrorism almost immediately.
Fox News reports:
A senior United States military commander at the time of the Benghazi, Libya attack has come forward with firsthand knowledge to say it was clear from the beginning that it had nothing to do with an anti-Islamic video.
Retired General Carter Ham, the former head of U.S. forces in Africa, told the Aspen Security Forum that he was in Washington, D.C. for a routine meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta when an alert came in from commanders in Germany that a violent assault was underway in Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing.
Amb. Stevens and three others were killed during that September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. In the weeks after, the Obama administration shifted blame onto an anti-Islamic video.
Gen. Ham said on Friday that within hours after the attack, it became clearer that it was not a demonstration and could be a terrorist attack.
Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News reported on July 5th that the Pentagon would not divulge the whereabouts of Marine Corps. Col. George Bristol because he had retired, and Congress “cannot compel retired members to testify before Congress.” Republicans in Congress have been eager to talk to Bristol because it is thought that he has valuable information about what happened in Benghazi.
Bristol, a martial arts master, was commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara based in Stuttgart, Germany until he retired last March. In an article in Stars and Stripes, Bristol is quoted at his retirement ceremony as telling his troops that “an evil” has descended on Africa, referring to Islamic militant groups. “It is on us to stomp it out.”
Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have asked the Pentagon for assistance in locating Bristol so that they can question him about events the night of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. But those efforts have come up empty.
“The Department of Defense has been entirely forthcoming on all matters related to our response to the attacks in Benghazi from the outset,” said Pentagon spokesman Firman. He added that “any congressional committee can call the witnesses it needs” through subpoena, if necessary.
On June 26, the House Armed Services Committee questioned other military members in the AFRICOM chain of command in a closed hearing. The witnesses included Bristol’s former superiors: commander of Special Operations Command Africa Rear Adm. Brian Losey and former AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham.
The Marine Corps. Times reported on July 17, that Bristol isn’t retired.
Defense Department officials have told members of Congress that Bristol cannot be forced to testify because he retired after stepping down during a March change of command ceremony, according to several media reports. The Pentagon reinforced that point of view to Marine Corps Times on Tuesday.
“Col. Bristol was not invited by Congress to testify before he retired,” said Air Force Maj. Robert Firman, a spokesman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “The DoD has cooperated fully with Congress and the Accountability Review Board since the beginning of this investigation, and we will continue to do so.”
That isn’t the case, however. While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media.
The Pentagon changed its tune, Monday, saying that Bristol will now talk to members of Congress.
The announcement follows at least two requests by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham for Bristol’s full account of the September 11, 2012, attacks.
It was not immediately clear if Bristol will talk in public or behind closed doors.
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Rob Firman told Fox News on Monday a Defense Department misunderstanding about when Bristol retired resulted in Graham’s first request being rejected.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) vowed last week, to go to the House floor every day until the August recess with a new question about Benghazi.
Today’s question: “Why was the CIA’s security team repeatedly ordered to ‘stand down’ for more than 30 minutes after the attack began?”
The CIA “repeatedly blocked” the departure of a security team that was ready “within minutes” to respond to the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya that claimed the lives of four Americans, according to Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.)
Wolf revealed on the House floor on Monday that “trusted sources have confirmed” to his office “that the security team was ready to respond within minutes after receiving the initial call for help, but the CIA repeatedly blocked their departure for more than 30 minutes.”
Meanwhile, an under-reported story at the Washington Times details how deeply involved the White House was in scrubbing the accuracy out of the Benghazi ‘talking points’, based on newly revealed emails.
As the hour grew late on the night of Sept. 14, the White House wanted to make one thing clear to the State Department and the CIA as the three collaborated on what would come to be known as the Benghazi “talking points,” designed to be used by Congress and administration officials to explain what had happened three days earlier at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
The attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, was not planned, White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote in an 8:54 p.m. email.
***
The initial talking points ran six paragraphs long and said the crowd was a mix of individuals, but “that being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack.” The talking points went on to recount attacks against other countries’ diplomatic missions in Benghazi and raised the prospect that the U.S. facilities were “previously surveilled” in anticipation of the attack.
By the time the talking points were approved a day later, they had been reduced to three paragraphs and any hint of terrorists or planning had been scrubbed. The final version said the attack was the culmination of “demonstrations” that were “spontaneously inspired” by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier Sept. 11, though it did acknowledge “indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
Some Washington pundits think that Benghazi is the most damning of all the Obama scandals.
Jeff Kuhner thinks “Benghazi may turn out to be President Obama’s Watergate.”
The scandal is a growing cancer on the administration, threatening its very existence. The more information comes out, the more damning it is. This is why Democrats — and their media allies — are desperately trying to sweep the truth under the rug. Mr. Obama’s political survival is at stake.
Joseph Curl says Benghazi is the Only Scandal That Matters.
White House: Bob Woodward, who knows a thing or two about scandals and cover-ups, isn’t falling for the double head fake.
“If you read through all these emails,” the Watergate reporter said, “you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’”
“I would not dismiss Benghazi.”
Too bad, Bob. Washington’s press corps already has.
We need to keep that faucet dripping if for no other reason than to watch the Regime’s lapdogs embarrass themselves trying to defend their Master.
“There’s no there there!” They simper.
Yeah right….
of course
Latest on BenghaziGate – Gen. Ham Bombshell + Not-So-Retired Marine Commander Will Testify Before Congress
Drip, drip, drip….
The General who was in charge of AFRICOM on the night of the Benghazi attack has gone on the record to say that it was clear that it was terrorism almost immediately.
Fox News reports:
A senior United States military commander at the time of the Benghazi, Libya attack has come forward with firsthand knowledge to say it was clear from the beginning that it had nothing to do with an anti-Islamic video.
Retired General Carter Ham, the former head of U.S. forces in Africa, told the Aspen Security Forum that he was in Washington, D.C. for a routine meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta when an alert came in from commanders in Germany that a violent assault was underway in Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing.
Amb. Stevens and three others were killed during that September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. In the weeks after, the Obama administration shifted blame onto an anti-Islamic video.
Gen. Ham said on Friday that within hours after the attack, it became clearer that it was not a demonstration and could be a terrorist attack.
Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News reported on July 5th that the Pentagon would not divulge the whereabouts of Marine Corps. Col. George Bristol because he had retired, and Congress “cannot compel retired members to testify before Congress.” Republicans in Congress have been eager to talk to Bristol because it is thought that he has valuable information about what happened in Benghazi.
Bristol, a martial arts master, was commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara based in Stuttgart, Germany until he retired last March. In an article in Stars and Stripes, Bristol is quoted at his retirement ceremony as telling his troops that “an evil” has descended on Africa, referring to Islamic militant groups. “It is on us to stomp it out.”
Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have asked the Pentagon for assistance in locating Bristol so that they can question him about events the night of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. But those efforts have come up empty.
“The Department of Defense has been entirely forthcoming on all matters related to our response to the attacks in Benghazi from the outset,” said Pentagon spokesman Firman. He added that “any congressional committee can call the witnesses it needs” through subpoena, if necessary.
On June 26, the House Armed Services Committee questioned other military members in the AFRICOM chain of command in a closed hearing. The witnesses included Bristol’s former superiors: commander of Special Operations Command Africa Rear Adm. Brian Losey and former AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham.
The Marine Corps. Times reported on July 17, that Bristol isn’t retired.
Defense Department officials have told members of Congress that Bristol cannot be forced to testify because he retired after stepping down during a March change of command ceremony, according to several media reports. The Pentagon reinforced that point of view to Marine Corps Times on Tuesday.
“Col. Bristol was not invited by Congress to testify before he retired,” said Air Force Maj. Robert Firman, a spokesman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “The DoD has cooperated fully with Congress and the Accountability Review Board since the beginning of this investigation, and we will continue to do so.”
That isn’t the case, however. While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media.
The Pentagon changed its tune, Monday, saying that Bristol will now talk to members of Congress.
The announcement follows at least two requests by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham for Bristol’s full account of the September 11, 2012, attacks.
It was not immediately clear if Bristol will talk in public or behind closed doors.
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Rob Firman told Fox News on Monday a Defense Department misunderstanding about when Bristol retired resulted in Graham’s first request being rejected.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) vowed last week, to go to the House floor every day until the August recess with a new question about Benghazi.
Today’s question: “Why was the CIA’s security team repeatedly ordered to ‘stand down’ for more than 30 minutes after the attack began?”
The CIA “repeatedly blocked” the departure of a security team that was ready “within minutes” to respond to the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya that claimed the lives of four Americans, according to Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.)
Wolf revealed on the House floor on Monday that “trusted sources have confirmed” to his office “that the security team was ready to respond within minutes after receiving the initial call for help, but the CIA repeatedly blocked their departure for more than 30 minutes.”
Meanwhile, an under-reported story at the Washington Times details how deeply involved the White House was in scrubbing the accuracy out of the Benghazi ‘talking points’, based on newly revealed emails.
As the hour grew late on the night of Sept. 14, the White House wanted to make one thing clear to the State Department and the CIA as the three collaborated on what would come to be known as the Benghazi “talking points,” designed to be used by Congress and administration officials to explain what had happened three days earlier at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
The attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, was not planned, White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote in an 8:54 p.m. email.
***
The initial talking points ran six paragraphs long and said the crowd was a mix of individuals, but “that being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack.” The talking points went on to recount attacks against other countries’ diplomatic missions in Benghazi and raised the prospect that the U.S. facilities were “previously surveilled” in anticipation of the attack.
By the time the talking points were approved a day later, they had been reduced to three paragraphs and any hint of terrorists or planning had been scrubbed. The final version said the attack was the culmination of “demonstrations” that were “spontaneously inspired” by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier Sept. 11, though it did acknowledge “indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
Some Washington pundits think that Benghazi is the most damning of all the Obama scandals.
Jeff Kuhner thinks “Benghazi may turn out to be President Obama’s Watergate.”
The scandal is a growing cancer on the administration, threatening its very existence. The more information comes out, the more damning it is. This is why Democrats — and their media allies — are desperately trying to sweep the truth under the rug. Mr. Obama’s political survival is at stake.
Joseph Curl says Benghazi is the Only Scandal That Matters.
White House: Bob Woodward, who knows a thing or two about scandals and cover-ups, isn’t falling for the double head fake.
“If you read through all these emails,” the Watergate reporter said, “you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’”
“I would not dismiss Benghazi.”
Too bad, Bob. Washington’s press corps already has.
We need to keep that faucet dripping if for no other reason than to watch the Regime’s lapdogs embarrass themselves trying to defend their Master.
“There’s no there there!” They simper.
Yeah right….
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,435
Lit libs, joyfully swinging on Obama's dingle berries, want to play like there is no administration cover-up, but those crusty little strings they happily cling to are snapping one by one.
If you have evidence of a purported "cover-up", by all means share it with us.
You don't have any evidence, do you?
Once again, you bring great shame to yourself, your family name, and the United States marine Corps.
Similar threads
