Benghazi Report of June 28, 2016

[lcam88]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5s6ROKXCgo


These investigators are quite passionate about the messages they are sharing in the report.

For anyone who wants to read the 800 page report, please visit.

[Aianawa]

Not the time atm, is it an honest report, ?.

[modwiz]

Not the time atm, is it an honest report, ?.

Since they are wearing suits and ties, I would not expect honesty from them. Few good men dress like that.

[lcam88]

Not the time atm, is it an honest report, ?.

I'm not sure how to answer that question. The people who wrote the report are claiming they have based their work on verifiable facts.

I suppose that qualifies as honest...

On their Contact page there is an address and a phone number. I suppose if we read the report and have questions to ask, we can send them a letter asking.

My impression from the video I share in the OP, is that these are the guys who would like their work to make a real difference. But to do that, they can't appear on YouTube, or national TV posturing themselves in a way that is unprofessional.

Is there anyone else here who has the intention of reading even a part of it?

[Aianawa]

Has to be a curious cat here lol.

[lcam88]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWKJegf5pYc

A summary I found on the page.

[lcam88]

This has to be classic DC bureaucracy at work.

June 27, 2016 | Press Release
Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement regarding the State Department’s continued refusal to provide information about the emails and records it is withholding from the committee based on bogus, nonexistent privileges:

“For nearly a year and a half, the State Department has withheld documents and information about Benghazi and Libya from the American people’s elected representatives in Congress. Whatever the administration is hiding, its justifications for doing so are imaginary and appear to be invented for the sake of convenience. That’s not how complying with a congressional subpoena works, and its well past time the department stops stonewalling.”

PS I'll go slow here, because it would be easy to start posting stuff like a mad-man.

[Aianawa]

Cheers.

[lcam88]

Cheers.

Thanks.

I must say, if any of us are concerned about the way government operates. Or if we are concerned with the fact that changes need to be made, we should do something about it. At least read the report.

Or else...

The hard work this committee has done to overcome obstacles and compile the facts to enable taking the first steps for actually making a difference is all in vain.

Benghazi is the obvious elephant in the room and if this is not enough motive to get into gear, might as well stop complaining about new world order, or UFO information being suppressed, Florine in drinking water, GMO's or anything.

[modwiz]

Thanks.

I must say, if any of us are concerned about the way government operates. Or if we are concerned with the fact that changes need to be made, we should do something about it. At least read the report.

Or else...

The hard work this committee has done to overcome obstacles and compile the facts to enable taking the first steps for actually making a difference is all in vain.

Benghazi is the obvious elephant in the room and if this is not enough motive to get into gear, might as well stop complaining about new world order, or UFO information being suppressed, Florine in drinking water, GMO's or anything.

You are so right. However, Hillary is an emotional response. Benghazi is but one of many crimes she is involved with. Her warmongering alone disqualifies her. There is a deep disconnect in the population or this woman would never be running for office. Samantha Power, Susan rice and Hillary are always pushing for war and stand as evidence that putting a woman changes anything, except for the worse. WOman trying to show they can be as tough or tougher than men is not what our world needs. The women who support only make the argument that women may too emotional to vote responsibly has some veracity. Women worked hard to get voting rights supposedly putting to rest that they were fit to be logical. Support for Hillary by many women because she is a woman hurts the women who fought to change that perception.

A large portion of the men who support her are gay and thinking only of their "rights" instead of standing for human rights for all. Then we have Democrats who will vote party line because they are little more than programmed robots. The disclosure we need is to see how dysfunctional we are and incapable of self-governance because it takes prudence and good judgement to self-govern effectively.

[lcam88]

I think Hillary is only mentioned in the report because she was the person with the most powerful title in the two hour meeting that produced 10 points of concern about the situation. If she has a larger involvement behind the scenes it is not elaborated on in the report, apparently. The report was produced to answer the question of what happened to the 4 Americans in Benghazi and not specifically to elaborate Hillary's full participation in it.

I saw a headline supposing the the Saudis where the funders behind the benghazi incident, we also know the saudis and Hillary have rubbed shoulders through Clinton Foundation donations as evidenced by leaked details from her email scandal.

But linking personal benefits Hillary has enjoyed directly to a cost in American lives enabled by the Saudi proxy requires someone dig into it. Right now, that is mere speculation though I don't think she is above it; benghazi may have been the preposition that was required of her before the Saudis could "trust" her. If so, and if she does manage to steal this election as she did the primaries, something I think will happen, certainly how US Saudi relations develop is going to be very "interesting" or "sad" to watch.

[Aragorn]

You are so right. However, Hillary is an emotional response. Benghazi is but one of many crimes she is involved with. Her warmongering alone disqualifies her. There is a deep disconnect in the population or this woman would never be running for office. Samantha Power, Susan rice and Hillary are always pushing for war and stand as evidence that putting a woman changes anything, except for the worse. WOman trying to show they can be as tough or tougher than men is not what our world needs. The women who support only make the argument that women may too emotional to vote responsibly has some veracity. Women worked hard to get voting rights supposedly putting to rest that they were fit to be logical. Support for Hillary by many women because she is a woman hurts the women who fought to change that perception. [...]

Yep, just as Barack Obama, when running for President for the first time, got the support of most of the African-American community simply because of his skin color. Reverend Jesse Jackson had tears in his eyes when Obama was first inaugurated, because Obama had achieved what Jackson himself could not, and what Dr. Martin Luther King had been murdered for.

As I have said before, in the United States of Acronyms, elections are nothing more than a popularity contest. Presidential candidates are first preselected by their respective parties — with only two parties to choose from, even though the US Constitution does not demand that — and then it's just a matter of whether it's the Demigod or the Repulsican who has the most charisma and the most money to spend on their campaign. US presidential elections are as fake as Donald Trump's hair or Hillary Clinton's boobs. It's all about make-believe and a dumbed-down population that refuses to wake up from their self-delusional dream of glitter and glamour (*).

(Let's for a moment forget about the role of the Super Delegates — who can always be manipulated when the pre-election polls reveal that an undesirable candidate may end up winning — or the strategic coupling of a presidential candidate with either a popular or controversial running mate, as was the case when John McCain was saddled up with Sarah Palin so as to make it easier on Barack Obama and Joe Biden.)

(*) Here at The One Truth, I can say that out loud. Elsewhere on the internet where there are large concentrations of US Acronymians, I would be — and have already amply been — burned at the stake for such blasphemy against the "home of the brave, land of the free".

Still, on account of Hillary's success, I think it runs deeper than that. The United States of Acronyms are a nuclear superpower, which started out as a British (and partly French) colony. When The White Man™ went to colonize what was called "the New World" in those days — a moniker still applied to North America by some even today — it was mostly adventurers, fortune seekers and outlaws from Europe who went over there. There was a decisively masculine energy behind the colonization of North America — not dissimilar to the Spanish and Catholic imperialist colonization of South America earlier — and this masculine energy has then paved the way for the global and US-driven corporatism and US military imperialism we have today.

In other words, at the international level, the USA are behaving like a confrontation-addicted alpha male, and for a woman to be able to climb up to the helm of such a testosterone-driven society, she would naturally have to possess these alpha male qualities herself. Hillary most certainly does, even if only because she's a coldblooded and manipulative psychopath. And that, of course, makes her into a very desirable White House puppet for The Powers That Be™.

They either way always have to have someone in the White House who is willing to wear blood on their hands like a glove while still being able to put up a smile before the cameras with ease. Hillary hasn't been President yet, but she does already have (lots of) blood on her hands, and she certainly loves smiling and laughing in front of a camera.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

[lcam88]

As I have said before, in the United States of Acronyms, elections are nothing more than a popularity contest.

I think it is better described as an exercise for the vote counters. It really happens to be that whoever counts the votes really determines the outcome of an election.

...at the international level, the USA are behaving like a confrontation-addicted alpha male...

I think alpha males have a type of order they fundamentally work towards perhaps based on an idealistic dogma, or perhaps based on some idea of self righeousness, considering EU policy as something influenced by the USA, it appears the alpha male is schizophrenic as well. It has difficulty identifying its friend from its foes or even what it is trying to actually do.

I think USA behavior is better described as "a chicken running around with its head cut off, blood squirting in all directions." I think this Benghazi report shows evidence of this pattern.

I agree with everything you have said Aragorn.

Good night everyone

[Cearna]

Whilst I agree with both males in their assessment of women in politics, I do hope that one day when the political climate alters enough, for a woman who does not have the kind of B***s that the present representatives of our gender, politically, exhibit, we may find it possible for genuininly intellectually capable women, with a heart may take their place alongside their male counterparts.

We had a similar case in our Federal Govt. when Julia Gillard became our Prime Minister. A labor leader, I think many of us were hopingf the wheel had turned finally in the right direction, but she too also became a grasping politician in front of our eyes, capable of just the same filth, that had gone on now for 200 years here.

In one of my regressions I went back, to some of the experimental places here on Earth before the time of Atlantis, when many of us tried out over roughly 300 years, various kinds of social systems. Each of us were prepared to live under each new system, giving it the best possible chance to work. Any new system that might be feasible were were prepared to try out. What we insisted upon was that each person must take a turn at each of the responsible positions, so that we all knew what was involved for each of these positions - the responsibilities and the pitfalls, so that when we were in the position, we had people who also knew what was required in the position. This worked well. Our experiments were put into the Ether, so that anyone with ability could pull this into working knowledge at any time.

[lcam88]

New revelations from part 1:

1. Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

2. With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

3. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]

4. A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

5. None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]

6. The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

I've bolded my tidbits that really stand out to me.