Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

tererun said:

Maybe if you make about 20 threads for every update there might be a new stary? Only problem is it seems to be a small group of the same people who keeps touting this as important. Perhaps it will become more interesting or actually be watergate if you guys shout louder? I also noticed that supposedly these guys are going to testify to bring down Obama because the news calls them whistleblowers and says the Obama admin may have threatened them (The Obama admin may also be holding the easter bunny hostage) so it seems that they will be bringing down the admin with their testimony of? Oh wait we don't even know if they will contradict the story given by the Obama admin at all.

Well, i guess it is good you shout victory now, sort of like how you declared victory in the presidential election. It will be much harder to claim victory after they testify and Obama is still around. So have fun with your victory party before the loss. I have to admit given your propensity for fail it is probably the best you can get.

Click to expand...

Funny how you are on EVERY one of these threads you bemoan as simply "shouting louder". Also interesting you bring up "Watergate". Just FYI, no one died in Watergate.

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say | Fox News

mark thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, who will testify that he was "locked out of the process" he was hired and trained to coordinate (according to cbs above), it turns out is not alone

fox has found "another official from the counterterrorism bureau" who, "independently of thompson," says the same thing

neither were heard by the arb (nor was ms clinton, she had "a blood clot near her brain" at the time)

congressman issa, according to numerous mainstream sources, is in possession of the email chain among state, odni, nsc, cia, fbi and the white house, which goes back and forth copiously on the nite of saturday, sept 15, preceding susan-rice-sunday on the 16th

the advisory the cia prepared for the edification of the american people (at the request of dutch ruppersberger, the pelosi caucus' leading voice in house intel) pointed to "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda," while calling out "ansar al sharia" and "jihad," all of which pertinent information was scrubbed at the insistence (the emails show) of state press spokesperson victoria nuland, who cited the need to "satisfy my building's leadership"

why?

why were mr thompson and the pros at the csg locked out of the emergency response they were tasked to do, the decision making on the ground, and the post-attack review?

why was the ACTING MISSION CHIEF, gregory hicks, who took over for stevens when the ambassador was killed, never questioned by arb, he's certainly eager to talk?

how can arb claim its conclusions hold any value when professional dissent within the department is excluded?

why do so many claim they were threatened and intimidated by their superiors in the state dept?

why wasn't a plane sent from souda bay, only an hour's flight from benghazi?

why were so many americans left "helpless and abandoned" at the consulate and then the annex?

mrs clinton?

Hillary: "What Difference Does It Make?"

is that the best you can do?