Jump to content

Benghazi Matters~


Recommended Posts

B.S in the first 42 seconds. U.S. Embassies and Consulates are the sovereign territory of the United States. It makes no difference if the dead are American Citizens or Embassy employees. The U.S. Ambassador should not have been in Benghazi in a lightly defended Consulate. He should have been in nthe Embassy. State Department personnel are always subject to the protection of the host country. There are no Embassies with enough U.S. military personnel to stave off an assault in the absence of local authorities. Every investigation into Benghazi has concluded that there was no way to get sufficient numbers of troops there in time to end the attack before the deaths of the 4 Americans. Benghazi is a tragedy, it is not a political scandal no matter how much the right wing wishes it was.

 

Lastly, being wrong about the cause of sometthing is not the same as lying about it. Obama called the attack an act of terror the very next day. You may continue.

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

B.S in the first 42 seconds. U.S. Embassies and Consulates are the sovereign territory of the United States. It makes no difference if the dead are American Citizens or Embassy employees. The U.S. Ambassador should not have been in Benghazi in a lightly defended Consulate. He should have been in nthe Embassy. State Department personnel are always subject to the protection of the host country. There are no Embassies with enough U.S. military personnel to stave off an assault in the absence of local authorities. Every investigation into Benghazi has concluded that there was no way to get sufficient numbers of troops there in time to end the attack before the deaths of the 4 Americans. Benghazi is a tragedy, it is not a political scandal no matter how much the right wing wishes it was.

 

Lastly, being wrong about the cause of sometthing is not the same as lying about it.

 

 

Wrong. It wasn't a political scandal until the White House started to lie about the whole thing and mislead the American public as to exactly what happened, when and why. Then it became a scandal and rightly so because a politician lying about the price of gas in Cleveland is one thing, but lying about the death of an American ambassador displays a serious lack of both character and leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, some things to thing about.

 

Interesting in debating the number of deaths vs the fabricated story that was completely false & know to be false.

 

Clinton was impeached not for an act but the lies & obstruction. Martha Stewart went to jail for lies, not the act of trading.

Obama & Clinton gets a pass for lying???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark gets paid to argue for guiltily people all the time. It's okay they deserve the best defense they can afford. But some times they don't give him much to work with. Like here.

 

"The U.S. Ambassador should not have been in Benghazi in a lightly defended Consulate. He should have been in the Embassy."

Blame the victim defense: It was a bad neighborhood, and wearing that skimpy outfit.. well, she was asking for it.

 

"there was no way to get sufficient numbers of troops there in time to end the attack before the deaths of the 4 Americans."

A Priori: An argument derived from previous event. You could not know this until after the fact. IF you could, wouldn't you also know that the attack was going to take place, since you already knew how long it would take?

 

"There are no Embassies with enough U.S. military personnel to stave off an assault"

The false suggestion: it sounded good when i said it... yeah, that's the ticket.

 

"being wrong about the cause of sometthing is not the same as lying about it."

A broken clock is still right twice a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, some things to thing about.

 

Interesting in debating the number of deaths vs the fabricated story that was completely false & know to be false.

 

Clinton was impeached not for an act but the lies & obstruction. Martha Stewart went to jail for lies, not the act of trading.

Obama & Clinton gets a pass for lying???

Martha was charged because of politics. Edited by MI451
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy it sure didn't take him long to jump right back into the "It's okay for Barack to lie because Bush did it." nonsense did it?

 

At any rate, right now Obama's chickens are coming home to roost in Iraq. It's not like there weren't a whole bunch of people who actually knew what they were talking about telling him that his phased withdraw plan was going to result in failure. He wasn't going to listen though because he had an "Iraq Study Group" that assured him everything would be okay so long as the Sunni's and Shia's work out their political differences. They aren't going to work out there differences genius, they've been doing this for centuries and they aren't suddenly going to change just because Barack Obama comes along and says "Now you guys behave." Uh, yeah, whatever jack ass. You might as well tell the Catholics and the Protestants to get along while you're at it. So right now Iraq is on the verge of falling into the hands of a terrorist organization because Obama was just so certain that his study groups and committees and political solutions were going to hold sway over two groups of people hell bent on killing one another. This is what happens when you put a clueless academic in charge.

Edited by BlackHorse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look everyone knows the story the Whitehouse put out. We can debate it all day, and get absolutely nowhere because of "he said, she said."

 

But what if I told you absolutely they knew as it was happening EXACTLY what was going on, because they were listening to the terrorists talk to each other?

 

Now how could that be?!?!?!?!?!?! Well, try this out of the hundreds of links provided---------> http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63752

 

 

If you would like a different one from a progressive, moderate, or conservative website, just tell Google you want "terrorists in Benghazi used state department phones to communicate." Then you can have your choice of links if you don't like mine.

Edited by akirby
Stick to the facts
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't make this stuff up...

 

When asked if he felt he was intentionally lied to, Woods recalled his meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Andrews Air Force Base back in September of 2012.

“Hillary Clinton came up to me and I gave her a handshake and a hug, and when I shook her hand she said to me, ‘We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.’ Even at that time, she was trying to place a spin on what happened,” he said.

 

Yet now we know that not only was the administration aware that the attack was not about the YouTube film, they were actually listening to the terrorists responsible. They heard - during the attack - our enemies celebrating their glorious victory. Then they sent Susan Rice out to tell the American people a bald face lie about the deaths of our men.

In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

Anyone still feel like pretending the video story wasn’t an intentional cover-up?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy it sure didn't take him long to jump right back into the "It's okay for Barack to lie because Bush did it." nonsense did it?

 

At any rate, right now Obama's chickens are coming home to roost in Iraq. It's not like there weren't a whole bunch of people who actually knew what they were talking about telling him that his phased withdraw plan was going to result in failure. He wasn't going to listen though because he had an "Iraq Study Group" that assured him everything would be okay so long as the Sunni's and Shia's work out their political differences. They aren't going to work out there differences genius, they've been doing this for centuries and they aren't suddenly going to change just because Barack Obama comes along and says "Now you guys behave." Uh, yeah, whatever jack ass. You might as well tell the Catholics and the Protestants to get along while you're at it. So right now Iraq is on the verge of falling into the hands of a terrorist organization because Obama was just so certain that his study groups and committees and political solutions were going to hold sway over two groups of people hell bent on killing one another. This is what happens when you put a clueless academic in charge.

If your going to mention the president before and after Bush, it's fair to include his lies too. Let's not act like only the democratic presidents do the lying. Be fair now.

 

As for Iraq, would anyone here prefer that we maintained a large force of military personnel for decades? Have more of our people die for a country that was waiting for this? This day was coming the moment we removed Saddam from power and everyone here know this.

 

The American people wanted out of Iraq, they wanted out of Afghanistan and now instead of blaming the culprit, those people who have waited decades to bring back sectarian violence, conservatives want to put the blame on Obama for doing what he was elected to do. Or one part of it anyway. How many of our people had to die before we cut our losses and understand that we can't stop this, it's entrenched with other Muslim countries supporting it with money, supplies and weapons.

 

Worse is the simple reality that in the process of removing Saddam the number of Iraqis killed might be higher than under his rule. Oh, the Irony of eliminating a cruel dictator for constant sectarian violence and a country that is infinitely more unstable, is filled with rampant crime and requires our troops to risk their lives to prevent a civil war.

 

You broke it, you bought it and funny the guy your blaming didn't break it or vote to break it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't make this stuff up...

 

 

 

You can if you are Obama or on his staff.

The sad part is when its buried and not public knowledge there is little public reaction. When its reported on and people DO know some turn a blind eye or try to explain it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not about Iraq, Afghanistan or any presidents other than the one in office during Benghazi.

 

 

Wrong, try to understand that these events are all related to a large degree. They are all part of the same giant mess. Trying to keep the topic narrow and specific is the same as looking at a painting through a straw and describing what you see. You have to be a big picture person when it comes to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akirby is right, this is about Benghazi. And if we narrow it to just that, and QUIT responding to anything about Bush since he is long gone, the progressives do not have a leg to stand on! Mr Bush is not in office, not running the federal government, has nothing to do with Benghazi. It falls squarely on the shoulders of our current President, Barack Obama.

 

Now then...............from the phones and every other fact in evidence, we now know absolutely, positively, no doubt about it, that this administration knew with 100% clarity on the VERY EVENING of the event, that this attack had NOTHING to do with any film, youtube video, santa claus not coming to town, or the easter bunny dropping the wrong colored eggs. This excuse was concocted to DECEIVE the American people, for whatever reason you want to make it to be.

 

So progressives, give all of us a real good PROGRESSIVE reason why our President, Barack, Millhouse, Obama........again.......lied to the American people through surrogates........ and even he personally; with a straight face no less, executed the same lie a week later in front of the UN and all the worlds leaders. And after being caught in multiple lies that his party backs up with every progressive having a straight face while pulling it off, why ANYONE in this country should believe ANY of you again; since each and every time it comes down to something important that affects every American, you just, can't, seem, to tell, the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you aren't embarrassed; we, as Americans who actually give a damn, are embarrassed for you.

 

But, just in case you progressives can't let Iraq go while blaming it on Bush...........do you see Iraq now? See what is happening? How can this be?

 

Who is leading this insurgency, this disaster in Iraq where all our treasure and blood was spilled! http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/we-let-leader-of-iraqi-insurgents-go-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fpemsz+(PrairiePundit)

 

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooo, your messiah let him go too! Just like the Bergdahl deal, Iraq now pays the price.

 

Congrats on your guys foreign policy, and his domestic policy stinks too. His economic policy? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Imawhosure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm officially confused. You agree with him that it's about Bengahzi not Iraq and then spend 3 or 4 of the last paragraphs in your post talking about Iraq.

 

And you lay a pretty heavy conservative vs. Progressives smack down too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We aren't going to get into general political debates about a party or individuals or ideologies. It only leads to name calling and serves no purpose. If you want to do that then go find another forum.

 

If you want to discuss a specific current event then go ahead. All I ask is to keep it on topic with no party or person bashing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottomline----->

 

While it was awful that 4 Americans died in Benghazi, Mr Obama might have been able to side step that. What he can't side step is (nor his administration including Hillary) after finding out about the phones, along with everything else that has consistently pointed at their lying, with the phones just being icing on top of the evidence cake; no American can believe anything he says that is important when you add every other mistruth he has put into the mix besides this one.

 

Where was President Obama, and what was he doing when all of this was going on, before he got on his plane to Nevada? The media won't ask him because I am sure it is against the rules, and he won't tell us anyway.

 

So he won't tell us what is fact, but he will tell us everything that is made up. Heck of a way to run a country where as of this moment anyway, these people work for us and we pay their salaries, don't you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. captures Benghazi suspect in secret raid

 

 


U.S. Special Operations forces captured one of the suspected ringleaders of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi in a secret raid in Libya over the weekend, the first time one of the accused perpetrators of the 2012 assaults has been apprehended, according to U.S. officials.
The officials said Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday near Benghazi by American troops, working alongside the FBI, following months of planning, and was now in U.S. custody “in a secure location outside Libya.” The officials said there were no casualties in the operation and that all U.S. personnel involved have safely left Libya.
Abu Khattala’s apprehension is a major victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for having failed so far to bring those responsible for the Benghazi attacks to justice.
Speaking at TechShop in Pittsburgh, Pa., President Obama praised U.S. Special Operations forces for “showing incredible courage and precision” in capturing Abu Khattala, who Obama saidis alleged to have been one of the masterminds” of the Benghazi attacks.

 

Will someone please explain to me how a spontaneous event has a "mastermind"?

 

Does this mean the entire story about a reaction to a video is/was absolute bullshit, with Obama all but admitting it?

 

Did I miss it when the Administration retracted their statements about the spontaneity of the event?

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again maybe that video did have something to do with it: Benghazi attack suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured by U.S. forces on Sunday, told people the move against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was intended as revenge for an American-made online video that was seen as an attack to Islam, according to the New York Times.

 

What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview days after the attack, he pointedly declined to say whether he believed an offense such as the anti-Islamic video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/benghazi-suspect-video_n_5505181.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, these guys must have watched some inflammatory videos also.

 

Graphic~

 

https://archive.org/details/al_saleel_4

 

 

Benghazi was a terrorist attack & administration tried to lie about it during an election.

Why the terrorists committed the assault and murders is a moot point especially when it was know in real time is was an organized attack and yet spun differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again maybe that video did have something to do with it:

Uh.....no.

 

I read both articles; the Huff Post and the NYT.

 

I saw the NYT say "according to people who heard him", but there is no direct quote at all.......from anyone. They couldn't find one person?

 

And the only direct quote given by the suspect himself wasn't definitive at all. If the attack was retaliation, there's no reason to be so vague about it.

 

That said, there was definitely a coordinated effort to mislead about the origin of the attacks. A point that Politifact agrees with.

 

Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points

 

But, what the hell. Obama was re-elected, and that's all that's important, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...