What's the matter? Losing with this topic, so you had to try and switch it? This topic is about the President not being in the situation room during the Benghazi attack. You will notice that I did not say this is what happened, but offered it a logical conclusion to "what would happen if the President was not in the situation room during the attack." If you bother to think about it, this scenario is far better for the President then some of the others. Such as, the Administration was funneling weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels, or that there had been some collusion between the Administration and terrorists to have the Ambassador kidnapped and traded for the blind sheik. Here is what I find not debatable on this topic: 1. The President was not in the Whitehouse Situation Room during the Benghazi Attack as he should have been. 2. No one reported a protest prior to the attack: a. The Turkish Ambassador that was meeting with Ambassador Stevens left the Consulate an hour before the attack began. He stated that there was no protest. b. Then Sec of State Clinton emailed the Situation Room saying that a terrorist group had claimed responsibility for the attack. The next day, a State Department official briefed the Libyan Ambassador that it believed the terrorist group was responsible. c. Sec of Defense Panetta and General Hamm were briefed that the attack was a terrorist attack while it was still ongoing. d. The head spook at the Tripoli Embassy filed a report the day after the attack stating that there never was any protest. e. By the time the work on the talking points was started, the survivors from the attacks were debriefed at Ramstein Air Force Base. 3. Every actual fact was deleted from the talking points. What was left was the false narrative that supported the President's Rose Garden Statement. 4. That false narrative in one form or another was pushed up to the elections.
That's not true. You are only feeding yourself the narrative you want to hear. The Senate Intelligence committee did report in the very latest one they put out, that there was strong reason to believe that one of the reasons for the attack was in protest of the movie.
Didn't hear the word Benghazi during the Bundy thing...... they really need something to rile up their base, don't they?
Not according to the US State Department, the House of Representatives committees on Armed Forces, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, the Judiciary and Oversight Control and Government Reform AND the US Senate Select Committee of Intelligence. They all believe there is NO reason to buy the story that an angry protest over a video morphed into an all out, well armed attack. There is more information here (speaking of the Senate Intelligence Committee): http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579322552751142002 Or do you just enjoy contradicting all the established expert findings?
Yea, IRS dried up too. They can always go back to Benghazi, because there are questions that will never get answered in their entirety no matter how long we look for answers. This is what the right needs to call, " the indefinite question asking scandal".
I read the senate bi-partisan committee investigative report. It did make reference to the movie as a possible motive for the attack. We have already hashed this out in the past on this forum. Your link isn't even readable other than who it is by. The Wall Street Journal. Yea right! Here's a list of some of the myths debunked of the lies of Fox News. One of them being the video; http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/15/fox-benghazi-myths-dispelled-by-new-bipartisan/197609
It's so obvious where you get all your own talking points from. Many of the claims you make have already been debunked; http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/15/fox-benghazi-myths-dispelled-by-new-bipartisan/197609 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9iO8ZCq3R8
Libya didn't had any (official/accepted or functional) government to give permission and even if there was they would never allow foreigners to operate in their soil just after Kadafi was gone.Last thing a new regime want is to get the mark of the traitor. As a political extension to the incident , you don't "liberate" people and then go bomb them, this is not Afghanistan but a country with huge European and Asian interests US military was called to stabilize . It may sound cruel but Obama preferred to lose people rather than having to face a PR nightmare of international scale. It was a gaffe to station political personnel in a mansion like this and i really wonder why your allies and spies didn't warn you , i am sure former regime had fortress like buildings and if you think that this was a huge attack your fortress like embassy in Athens has been attacked several times with rockets and sometimes anti-tank ones , i don't remember anyone ever getting injured.
The video had been shown that morning in Benghazi. It had everything to do with the protests and embassy attacks in Muslim countries. It prompted an American hating rebel group to attack this CIA compound. The video was used to bring even more people who were already angry to the compound and mad enough to join the attack. That stupid video cost us plenty. Susan Rice went with the best information that there was. In essence, they repeated a rumor that there had been demonstrations. In retrospect, perhaps not a wise thing to do. But, the American people wanted to know what happened; they told us what they believed happened. The early information that they got was wrong. There were no demonstrations that got out of hand. It was a spontaneous attack. There's nothing else there.
LOL we now know it wasn't. It was organized terrorism. Where have you been? How many impromptu protesters mad at a video do you know of that have shoulder fired grenade launchers? Don't take my word for it, you could always read the recently released email proving that they prepped Rice to say it was from a video and not a failure of foreign policy. Perhaps you could tell us (if you are so right) why Obama simply doesn't answer the questions and make us all look bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy? That would only make all of his other scandals wane. The answer is because he is guilty of letting four people die for votes. Now please explain why Obama wont answer these questions.
No the IRS didn't dry up. We will move to that one after we determine why four people died. Lets clear up his scandals that caused people to die for apparently votes first, then we can focus on the ones where he abused the power of the IRS to target his political opponents. P.S. He clammed up on the IRS scandal too. So much for the self proclaimed transparent President eh? He lied about that as well.
Unless Obama himself was involved in the murders of these americans nothing will come out this . If the democrats refuse to participate in these investigations this will go no where. Lying? Give me a break since when do politicians tell the truth? Bush lied, Clinton , Reagan, Bush senior, jimmy carter, they all lie. Lets just say the outcome is Obama lied then what?
Media Matters. Yeah, right! The fact is that it's now seen as absurd and impossible that a street demonstration would or could morph into an eight hour long, well armed and organized attack on our Benghazi compound. In fact, were you aware, we have identified the group that attacked us (Ansar al Sharia) and that within a matter of hours of the attack, State Department officials had identified the group as the one who had attacked us (the email that initially identified Ansar al Sharia came from none other than Hillary Clinton's second in command, Beth Jones) not only on 9/11/2012 but several times earlier leading up to the big, main attack.http://www.sharylattkisson.com/state-dept.-al-sharia-email--may-1--2014.html So you can keep your Media Matters drivel: the State Department itself knew almost immediately that there was no "street demonstration" responsible for the attack in Benghazi (as if that was possible). People died and then the Obama administration lied. You are on the wrong side of the facts and history. How does it feel?
All true because I was pointing out those very things during the first two weeks of the Benghazi event while ardent Obama supporters were still shrieking about the movie and utterly rejecting documented reality. But to be fair to them . . . ABC, CBS, and NBC and -- through NBC -- MSNBC were ALL ignoring anything and everything that ran counter in any way to the White House cover up scenario. That's because they were already heavily invested in seeing Barack Obama get re-elected, and they were not going to allow mere truth to stand in their way.
In Watergate the media was leading the howling mob out to get Richard Nixon. In Benghazi the media are the ones offering Obama and his quislings a place to hide in their barn. The duplicity of the main stream media couldn't be clearer and it's no wonder why the left all hates Fox so much: they simply can't lie with impunity anymore.
If not before. If Hillary Clinton decides not to run for President the right wing will forget about the topic and change their focus on something else.... in other words they'll desperately try to dig up something on the Democratic candidate. Since the Bundy debacle is over (and egg on the right wing face) and the ACA is a success, Fox republicans need to rile up the base. They'll cling to BENGHAZI!!! 4 Dead Americans as long at it's politically viable. The real crime is the right wing exploitation of the attack and the deaths for political purposes. That's all it is. They're desperately trying to discredit a politician and the country doesn't buy it.
If you think fighting the democrat presidential candidate right in front of you is the same as simply walking away from Benghazi then you couldn't be more wrong. Truly. Always declare victory when it isn't clear you've won anything at all. Same principle. When you can't earn victory claim it anyway. Are you trying to convince yourself that the republicans are politicizing this issue ( or re-politicizing it, considering how Obama couldn't admit that an Al Qaeda affiliate attacked us in Benghazi, while he was publicly taking bows for the demise of Al Qaeda)? I think it says much about the accusers that they can't understand why the death of four Americans is so worth investigating so we can avoid the mistakes of Benghazi in the future. Why doesn't the left want that? Only in Left World could trying to get to the bottom of a serious lack of security, that the White House is still years later trying to cover up, be called "exploitation" by the people that just want to push this issue under the rug.
Like I said, it's all politics. Right wingers don't care about these 4 Dead Americans... they only care about using them politically. Why else would they be making such a fuss over it? It's shameful. republicans have a history of exploiting people and events for political gain and this is just another case.
Yes. The liberal mainstream media/press.....are so invested in the First American Black President being successful.....they are willing to lie and hide things from the public. IOW's, the help him "cover-up" things. I cannot even currently phantom an incident where they would turn on him. But I do believe that most historians will write it up that way----that Obama got protected in ways that no other president before him did.
Collectively our nation's left had no problem sending this nation into long term convulsions over Iran-Contra and Arms-for-Hostages and yet they don't WANT to know what Obama and company were doing purchasing and shipping arms TO or FROM Al Qaeda forces that resulted in the death of a U.S. Ambassador . . . a rogue operation NOT endorsed by the U.S. Legislative Branch of government. So what the Left was willing to bring this nation to its knees over during the 1980s is of absolutely no importance to them today when THEIR president is fully involved . . . in an illegal rogue operation and cover-up.
She said that Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Panetta all told her 6 inches from her face, while her son's body was in a casket being unloaded, that the video maker was at fault, and that they would get him. I don't know for certain that the families are right, but it is just one more piece in this puzzle that doesn't make sense.
Sort of how the media, Reid, Pelosi, and others exploited the deaths of Americans in Iraq in order to undermine our mission there, so that they could gain political influence over Republicans trying to actually win the war. They pulled the long con on you guys, and you haven't even realized it.
