Panetta: ‘From The Beginning’ I Knew Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack

Strawman? Why would it be a strawman when Panetta, along with the CIA said it was a terrorist attack right out of the gate? Be honest, it was Obama covering his lying ass because of the elections.

 

So you don't think the following statement is a strawman?

Oh gee, I don't know, I guess you feel the same about the opinion of whistle blowers, rapes, or any other opinions from those that were there..


the insistence of the hard right to keep this idiotic meme of Obama lying about it being a terrorist attack is idiotic, but I suppose it panders to the partisan base. It was called a terrorist attack FIRST time Obama addressed the nation some hours after candidate Romney went off all half cocked with specious accusations of blaming Obama for the actions of Islamist terrorists.

And the diehards wont let it die despite the fact that calling it a terror attack or a spontaneous attack MADE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO THE ATTACKERS, THE ATTACKED, THE RESPONSE OR THE ELECTION. the only people it seems to have made a difference with is are republican partisans who actually believe that the Obama administration plotted to "cover up" an attack that killed a US ambassador.

I can understand why many partisans would be inclined to believe such a "political conspiracy" theory but it presupposes that the Obama Administration is as dumb and ignorant as they are.

What really upsets the hard right is that he is perceived to have "gotten away" with it. IIRC, he did get reelected by a rather large margin despite republican hopes and dreams.

 

No, what is more idiotic is people like you believing Obama is not a liar when so many like Panetta say he is.

 

It's the path taken when serious cognitive dissonance smacks a drone in the face. Denial can only go so far. Expect this to propagate.

Even Jonathan Alter is coming around.


.

 

It's all they've got when the record is FAIL and criminality. They backed 'The WP LIAR OF THE YEAR'. None have the stones to own that.

 

Please point to where Panetta called Obama a liar.

I don't for a moment think Obama does not lie to the public and the international community as needs must.
He is the president after all. Lies can be a big part of diplomatic engagement, hard negotiations, threats, political campaigns and political criticism.

Perhaps you know some heads of state that don't lie, because I sure don't. I am of the firm belief that every leader of every country lies, just like every politician. I realize that the "everyone else does it" argument is somewhat fallacious, but it provide perspective and comparators.

 

I find it amazing when Obama supporters like you justify and endorse the blatant bald face lying from Obama. Obama has been one big lie since he stepped on the political stage, and when you get previously failed presidents like Jimmy Carter saying he (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, you know it's bad.

The good news for you Jonsa, is by the time Obama finishes office, there will so few of you Obama supporters left, your reunions will be really easy.

 

Oh how soon they forget, despite the fact republicans already experienced supporters abandoning ship given Jr.s, fall from grace.

I should also mention that apparently part of the plan is to redefine "lie" and "liar".

Can you perhaps back up your claim that Panetta called Obama a liar? (that was you wasn't it?)

 

.[/QUOTE]

Truthfully, I was pretty "underwhelmed" with Panetta's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor. For someone who has made a big splash in the text of his book, Panetta seemed very reticent, tame, and almost borderline squeamish in having to answer Bill O'Reilly's questions -- even though the questions were nothing more than reinforcements of things that Panetta raised and spoke about in the book! He seemed almost embarrassed to be restating these very things, and that just doesn't make sense. Was he sandbagging and "holding back" to entice people to buy his book instead of "giving the plot away"...? If so, that's a slimy tactic.

If he's really that unwilling to stand up, state clearly his position unequivocally, without a lot of word-mincing, and fence-straddling, then to hell with him. Frankly, we don't need Leon Panetta to tell us what really happened at Benghazi. Anybody wanting to know about that needs to see the new book by three men responsible for security who were there: http://www.amazon.com/13-Hours-Account-Happened-Benghazi/dp/1455582271

 

He called it an "act of terror". He called it an attack on Americans. And the 20/20 hindsight has shown that the CIA did initially say the video could have prompted it. When they knew more, they said more.

There is no conspiracy here. I find it odd, that if you look at Bush in 20/20 hindsight, there are so many outright lies. There are major speeches right before the war where he says the Head of Iraqi Military Intelligence defected and said they had WMD, when the guy told us the exact opposite. There are quotes of the guy Curveball, like they were facts, when hindsight has shown the CIA never talked to the guy and the Germans that did called him a pathological liar... and none of this matters to the right as thousands of Americans were killed and trillions wasted on these lies. But calling something an "act of terror" instead of an "act of terrorism" somehow is a huge deal for these same people.

 

Panetta's comment of the lack of truth from Obama was an inference, but here on planet earth, those of us with a brain call people like Obama a liar.

Bringing Bush up is quite a slap in the face to liberals, because he polls better than Obama

 

I dunno. This is close to the max you'll get out of any administration apparatchik.

 

Wasn't this an act of terror right after it happened?

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-libya-rose-garden-speech-2012-10#ixzz3FjgIXfSt

 

Read more at fact check. The president was speaking in broad terms not specific to Benghazi. Days later when asked if it was an act of terrorism directly in an interview he said it was too early to speculate and that there was no reason to assume that... all the while the administration was spinning the spontaneous uprising yarn on any outlet that would air them. For weeks.

 

I see....so to meet you criteria he should have said:

" The consulate in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists and they had preplanned the entire thing"....this before anyone actually knew it to be true.

Gotta love hindsight.

 

I think the wiser move would have not been to promote the false narrative about the spontaneous uprising for weeks knowing it wasn't true... and I don't think you need hind sights benefit for that.

 

That comment wasn't inferring at all that Obama is a liar. That comment was him expressing a deduction on his part - “I didn’t have any specific information".

Of course, there are those that are just fine with inferences and deductions that fit with their own narratives. Others, prefer actual evidence.

Perhaps you shouldn't rely on fox news polls.


http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2014/05/obama-and-bushs-6th-year-job-approval.html

 

no one ever said Benghazi wasn't Terrorism...

 

Try again Jonsa, I am talking of today, not what Bush numbers were, but what they are now. Bush today out polls Obama today. Kind of hard for you to swallow, but I love it. Americans are seeing Obama for what he is, an inept liar, and his numbers show it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-like-bush-than-obama-even-more-like-clinton/

Here's one you'll love

http://rt.com/usa/167920-obama-favorable-gallup-poll/

And you are sure to love this one

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theov...bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/

 

I seem to remember Obama and company initially attempting to pass it off as a spontaneous demonstration by the locals in response to a film they had never seen.

Are you ignorant of the issue, or do you not understand what "no one ever" actually means?

 

Try again Jonsa, I am talking of today, not what Bush numbers were, but what they are now. Bush today out polls Obama today. Kind of hard for you to swallow, but I love it. Americans are seeing Obama for what he is, an inept liar, and his numbers show it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-like-bush-than-obama-even-more-like-clinton/

Here's one you'll love

http://rt.com/usa/167920-obama-favorable-gallup-poll/

And you are sure to love this one

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theov...bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/

 

No one every said Benghazi wasn't terrorism.

In fact Obama said it was an act of terrorism the morning after in the rose garden.

the rest of the "scandal" revolves around a dip(*)(*)(*)(*) partisan argument that for political reasons Obama wanted to cover up the fact that it was a terrorist attack.

What the administration said was the CAUSE of the terrorist attack was a spontaneous reaction to that stupid video, which of course empirical evidence from the other 20 or so demonstrations, most notably the spontaneous assault on the embassy in Cairo, and in the absence of any hard intel to the contrary, that seem initially likely.

Are you ignorant of the issue?

As a vet ( I assume from your avatar), do you not understand that terrorism can easily be motivated spontaneously in an environment where everyone is running around with AK's, heavy machine guns, RPGs and mortars? that a terrorist can easily be hidden in the "sheep's clothing" of legitimate protestors? Seems there are dozens of examples of exactly that occurring to AMERICAN forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama was not the perpetrator despite republican attempts to make it so.

 

You should have been more specific then.

Can you name a president who's opinion rating didn't go up after leaving office?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

 

The parents of the four who died waiting for someone to respond to that 3 a.m. phone call should dig up the remains of those loved ones and assemble them in that same hangar where the most respected political figures of the then government administration blasphemed the stories of the victims sacrifice.

Brings to mind trees, ropes, and knots. And a pack of four legged jackals... hungry ones

 

Amazing how many excuses you will make for Obama. Even Bush's favorable numbers have risen dramatically among democrats, and I can guarantee you that won't happen after Obama leaves office from republicans. Americans can forgive a president for a bad decision, but Obama is a blatant liar, and not just once, but over and over, and he won't see favorable light for a hundred years, that is if we are even still a country. There are millions of liberals that hate our country and what it stands for, and our end is most definite