The Motives Behind The November “House Intelligence Panel” Report On Benghazi…

Loading

sundance:

Those of you familiar with the Benghazi Brief will note the alignment and expectation of the Rogers/Ruppersberger report.  Their report is exactly as we anticipated it would be.

As you read the House Intelligence Panel Report on Benghazi it is important to note a few key aspects:

• Both Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger are members of the Congressional Gang of Eight.  They are the ONLY authors.

• Both Rogers and Ruppersberger would have been briefed on the CIA operations in Benghazi during 2011/2012 as the covert operation began.

• President Obama signed a finding memo in 2011 permitting Operation Zero Footprint to begin.

• Rogers, Ruppersberger along with Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss and Diane Feinstein would have been notified of the presidential authorization. In 2011 they were the congressional Gang of Eight.

• In addition to the covert Zero Footprint Operation, the Benghazi CIA annex served as a rendition site. [We find this out in 2013 from Paula Broadwell, who was the pillow-talk recipient of information from 2012 CIA Director General David Petraeus. Broadwell and Petraeus had an extramarital affair.]

Benghazi Report House Panel November 2014

The Rogers/Ruppersberger Report is specifically designed, by wording, to provide political cover to both parties – Republicans and Democrats within the Gang of Eight specifically included, and protected.

It is professional obfuscation in structure, content and wording. Here’s an example:

Page #2

rogers-ruppersberger 1

This is an excellent paragraph to show how the entire 37 page document is strategically worded.

wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement

This wording intimates that none were signed.  Not correct.  We know nondisclosures were required.  This phrasing simply says none were “wrongly forced“.  Where the intelligence community/committee determines rightly and wrongly.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This report is a complete whitewash. When told to wait, in this kind of instance, it can only be interpreted as a stand down order. Waiting can cost of lives. And, on September 11, 2012 waiting cost the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and Foreign Service IT officer Sean Smith. Rather than increasing security personnel to Libya, security personnel were withdrawn. There is no getting around this. It implies an off-the-books operation was in progress.

It can only be surmised Trey Gowdy’s select committee on Benghazi is closing in on the truth is causing some to be very uncomfortable on what may be discovered and revealed.

The resonance of the Warren Commission Report on the Kennedy assassination echos this same format. Dutch is an obese, inflated democrat and Rogers had not missed a meal.
This unless piece of garbage will set the mark that the gay, secretary of slut clinton had no responsibility nor the useless fool.

Reality check: It was a report issued by a GOP led investigation committee, after a very long and very thorough investigation.

It basically came to the exact conclusions predicted by the Flopping Aces “Gang of Three” (Greg, Rich, Larry) back when it was all unfolding in 2012.

It’s a dead issue.

The usual suspects will continue to believe that Obama occupied himself twirling his evil moustache, forcing the military to stand down, after personally making the decision to provide inadequate security at the embassy, willfully allowing Stevens to be murdered, and then directed a cover up to enhance his own re-election prospects.

But it’s a dead issue, now and forever.

Time to let it go.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

“wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement“

This wording intimates that none were signed. Not correct. We know nondisclosures were required. This phrasing simply says none were “wrongly forced“. Where the intelligence community/committee determines rightly and wrongly.

Who is the writer trying to kid? “Wrongly forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement” means improperly forced to sign, to cover up actual wrongdoing or politically damaging information. They’re stating that this wasn’t the case.

The statement isn’t intended to intimate “that none were signed.” That would be a ridiculous assertion. Participants in activities and operations involving national security are always required to sign non-disclosure agreements. Signing such agreements is the rule. Failure to obtain them would be seriously negligent.

Progs, bless their hearts. They don’t realize that Goober was looking directly at them when he called them stupid.

Part of the report blames no one for their being no military response, at all. The excuse given is they could not have gotten there in time. When the incident started they did not know how long it would last. The fact is, some one very high up in the chain of command decided not to respond and they decided that from the very beginning. But then if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Anything that the lying son of a bitch President says cannot be counted on. I hope Trey Gowdy finds the truth or verifies what many believe.

Should I believe politicians, or should I believe the ones who were there? Recently, I finished reading, “13 Hours”, by Mitchell Zuckoff. He interviewed the ones who were there, and told THEIR story. The fighting lasted at least nine hours. That was plenty of time to send air support to take out the enemy that surrounded them, but none was sent. Before anybody decides what they believe about Benghazi, they should the book. I am now reading, “The Real Benghazi Story”. I haven’t read very far into it yet, so I won’t comment on it.

there were no intelligence failures

State and the administration were warned of the threats but did noting. Requests for additional security were made, but ignored.

“wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement“

Unfortunate wording. How about “none were forced to sign”… oh, that’s right… they cannot honestly make that statement.

flawed talking points

i.e., lies to cover the reelection aspirations of a corrupt President.

This does not look like a vindication of the White House or Hillary. There are still unanswered questions.

@Larry Weisenthal:

Only in leftist fevered, delusional brains is this a dead issue…

…as well as for the 4 Americans who were sacrificed by Obama and Hillary.

The “logic” used by leftists to laughably claim:
– That despite the Ambassador on the ground repeatedly asking for increased security, no one could have foreseen the attack
– The idiotic excuse that no military force could have gotten there in time to make a difference despite the attack lasting nine hours
– There was no stand down order, when in fact military personnel on the ground have publicly stated they were ordered not to go to aid the compound

and the biggest lie of all…that the attack was a ‘spontaneous demonstration expressing outrage over a video’

See you leftists don’t get that your repeated lies and deception mean nothing you say will ever be accepted as truth unless verified by reliable sources…and claiming this is a “republican” report shows you missed the entire thrust of the post.