Only uninformed people don't know the whereabouts of President Obama during Bengazi.

Well then, please inform me.

I would tell you, but you wouldn't believe it anyhow. Just come up with another conspiracy.

I have to give Pooper242 a triple +++ for this posting! One true, if not in context statement, followed by 4 lies and/or misrepresentations and/or smears. Something approaching 20% accuracy is a major step forward!

Here's the thing keeping me up tonight.

It's the segment where John Brennan says:

I must tell you, Senator, reading this report from the committee raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time. now I have to determine what, based on that information as well as what CIA says, what the truth is. and at this point, Senator, I do not know what the truth is. (TRMS segment: see 1:20)

Ok, let's walk through the more likely possible realities:

1. Brennan is lying. He has long known the torturing didn't work, and there was nothing new in the report that he didn't know.
2. Brennan exaggerates the level of questions raised in his mind. He believes the torturing worked. There may or may not be some information he was unaware of but he dismisses the report's credibility for a number of possible grounds. For example, he might view the report as simply a political tool (approved on a largely party line vote in December) based on faulty or not credible information that happens to fit the liberals in the majority on the committee.
3. Brennan was sincere. People in the CIA believe the torturing worked and this is what has been told him universally. Due to the lack of controversy on the subject he has taken it to be accepted fact. The report has information he was unaware of that directly and convincingly contradicts what everyone had told him.

Occams razor says choose the simplest explanation-, so either one or two should be the correct one. They are simplest because CIA heads have a long history of lying, dissembling or exaggerating to those performing oversight- and even to their boss in the White House. (example: Tenet told Bush that the WMD case was a "Slam dunk". )
.
1 and 2 are pretty bad, because Brennan is about to be confirmed as CIA head. So why should #3 disturb me more? After all, it would be nice to know that Brennan was a good guy, was exercising good faith and simply was operating on incorrect information.
.
What disturbs me about #3 is that it would require me to believe that our chief counter terrorism expert was unable to independently verify a fact that was central to his job of making tactical decisions about counter terrorism: Does torture save lives or not? If it is one of your key tools during your work under Bush, it is crucial to understand whether it is working or not.
It's not hard to see how groups would fib to Brennan. There are always operational groups in an organization that want to keep on doing what they are doing and exagerate or distort how effective they are. It also happens in science all the time. The thing that makes what you are doing science and not witch doctor sooth saying is that you can and do go out and verify what is being told you. You attack what is being told you from all possible angles to see if you can knock it down. If from several independent sources you are seeing the same picture, then there is reason to have greater confidence in the story being presented you. Naval intelligence told Nimitz that the Japanese target of a major assault they called AF was actually Midway. Although they had great confidence in their code breakers, the Naval command independently verified the hypothesis by telling Midway to send back in an unencoded message that they were having trouble with their water purification plant. The Japanese intercepted the report and sent and encoded message stating AF was having trouble with its desalinization equipment. They had a hypothesis but they didn't simply trust it- they threw rocks at it to see if they could break it.
.
What is disturbing about #3 is that there is some really really bad science going on at CIA. Either -

1. Brennan is bad at the job of independently verifying crucial facts central to his job -or-
2. The CIA bureaucracy is very good at lying to whomever is trying to control them.

I don't know which is scarier.