White House Defends New Benghazi Email

[qui_est_ce]

Did Bush put out a lie that it was an internet video that was responsible? Did Bush go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? Did Bush send his SOS to the parents to repeat the lie. Did Bush send his ambassador to the Sunday morning talk shows to repeat the lie? Did Bush go to the UN and continue the lie about the video? Did Bush suppress all investigations into what happened?

We really still don’t know what happened. The story is dribbling out because we are FORCING our “transparent” administration to give us the information.

• We don’t know why Stevens was in Benghazi
• We don’t know what the meeting with the Turkish official was about
• Conveniently the Turkish official left before the attack began
• We were told it was a spontaneous demonstration, when in fact, the weapons used tell us differently
• We don’t know who gave the stand down order

In the end, SMG, if it’s so petty, why all the lies and obfuscations? Just tell the truth and move on. The silence by the administration who promised to be open and transparent is deafening. Nixon’s lies were a lot more petty, he stepped down.

Typical. No gerrymandering by Dems. They are as pure as the driven snow.

Just answer my bullet points. Can you do that?

:compcoff::coffeeread:

 

[zz912]

nationalreview.com/article/376952/obamas-blame-video-fraud-started-cairo-not-benghazi-andrew-c-mccarthy/page/0/1

*Because there was a kernel of truth to the video story, and because the American media have abdicated their responsibility to report the predominant causes of anti-Americanism in Egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion — a false notion — that the video caused the Cairo rioting. That acceptance is key to the administration’s “Blame the Video” farce in connection with the lethal attack in Benghazi.

At about 10 p.m. Washington time on the night of September 11 — after they knew our ambassador to Libya had been murdered and while the siege of Benghazi still raged — Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama spoke on the telephone. Shortly afterwards, the State Department issued a statement from Secretary Clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in Benghazi. That was the beginning of the fraud’s Benghazi phase — the phase Susan Rice was prepped to peddle on nationwide television. But it wasn’t the beginning of the fraud.

Secretary Clinton’s minions at the State Department had started spinning the video fraud hours earlier, in Egypt. The sooner Americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of the president’s Benghazi cover-up.*

 

[estesbob]

ObamaCare is actually going pretty well. In many of the states where the Senate race will be won or lost, it’s actually succeeding the most (KY, AR being the big two). It’s part of the reason Republicans are having a hard time sinking Pryor. And with McConnell’s intense effort to do everything he possibly can to torpedo his own campaign, it’s getting harder and harder for Republicans to win the Senate, even if they’ll almost certainly have a net gain of seats with a worst-case scenario (likely being gaining MT/SD/WV and losing KY/GA).

I could see ObamaCare ads working in the House, where the most far-right in our country have an outsized influence in the voting process due to gerrymandering, but when it comes to the political center, it’s lost its charm as an attack ad. I suppose you could use the HHS mandate as an example of an immoral addition to the law after-the-fact, but considering:

a) None of the Democratic Senators voted for the HHS mandate;

b) Republican Senators were the ones who blocked the Stupak Amendment from becoming law in a failed attempt to torpedo the whole bill;

and c) practicing Catholics are such a minority in this country that most people could care less what we’re forced to do against our faith,

the political science doesn’t really bode well for that attack ad either. Which leaves…more Benghazi? I mean, I don’t really know what the Republicans’ plans are. Attack a working health care law and a non-scandal that has been exploded to mythical proportions, and then offer literally nothing of substance? How is that supposed to win the Senate or the Presidency in 2016?

Because the House can be tailor-made to a constituency via gerrymandering, pandering to the base works in the chamber. But Republicans won’t ever win the Senate or Presidency doing that nonsense, since they have to rely on moderate votes.

I sincerely hope Democrats campaign on the"success" of Obamacare.

 

[ishii]

Someone posted a list today on the Washington Post story describing around 10 similar terrorist attacks that happened on US Embassies during the time Bush was in office. All of them had casualties at or above the amount of people who died in Benghazi. I am not saying those lives were not important; I am saying that it is clear Republicans are exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political purposes, which I personally find reprehensible. The only reason this is even a scandal is because Obama is a Democrat and the right-wing media outlets are on anything remotely connected to him like wildfire.

I also don’t see how the IRS’s systematic targeting of both liberal and conservative groups abusing their tax-exempt status to issue political ads is a scandal either. It was a pretty bipartisan plan that has become just as mythical as Benghazi to the GOP base.

Fast & Furious was a pretty dumb plan; I’ll admit. But it’s pretty minor on the “political scandal” front. Reagan shipped arms into Iran to buy an election. Nixon attempted to steal an election. Bush manipulated evidence into a war, then his top aides outed an active CIA operative in retaliation for opposition to said war. He then commuted the sentence of the only person to be convicted over said retaliation. And somehow Fast & Furious is on that level? It’s not even apparent that Obama had any involvement in it!

The fact that these scandals are the best Republicans can come up with either indicates an incredibly poor opposition research team or that Pres. Obama is a fairly scandal-free President. It also demonstrates how rabid the right-wing media is, where, again, it acts like a feral dog that bites anything it sees, no matter how small. The conservative insulation bubble will continue to keep it far enough away from main society so as to be politically irrelevant.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering has made it impossible for elected Republicans to actually see the errors of their political idiocy, as they will always win the House, no matter how many Americans hate their ideas and especially their behavior. They’d have to lose the House by 7 million votes just to lose it by one seat. Democrats actually won the House by over a million votes in 2012, but they have less seats than Republicans due to gerrymandering. And most Republicans are in safe GOP districts that don’t care about anything but far-right politics. It’s a lose-lose scenario for both the Republican Party and Americans.

Ha. Nixon, Bush, Gerrymandering eek. You forgot to mention that Hoover started the Depression, the Warren Harding scandals, Iran Contra, the Ulysses S Grant administration… I have heard the reasoning you make above - “everyone else did it, so who cares” before from my daughter. She was 8 years old at the time though.

Seriously, beyond the juvenile arguments, I think that no matter what happened before, and by who, if the current occupant of the White House lied about something as serious as an attack on an embassy that killed an ambassador - all in order to protect his re-election, then we need to get to the bottom of it. We shouldn’t let a partisan, “circle the wagons” mentality ( so much on display here) prevent the truth from coming out.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I don’t think any other conclusion is possible. I have asked in this thread what the administration is attempting to “cover up”, and all we have gotten for an answer is that, well, the administration put out a “false” narrative about what really happened. It wasn’t an anti-Muslim video; it was a terrorist attack.
.

I have given you an answer, you just don’t like it. The Obama administration perpetuated the falsehood that the attack on Benghazi was due to a reaction to a video and not a terrorist attack. ***This was done to protect the re-election chances. *** Got it? I’ll say it again: they lied to protect the myth that Obama’s foreign policy was one of his (few) strengths. Disagree with this conclusion if you want. But please don’t pretend that you haven’t been given any answers. You have. You just don’t like them.

Ishii

 

[TaurusRex]

I have given you an answer, you just don’t like it. The Obama administration perpetuated the falsehood that the attack on Benghazi was due to a reaction to a video and not a terrorist attack. ***This was done to protect the re-election chances. *** Got it? I’ll say it again: they lied to protect the myth that Obama’s foreign policy was one of his (few) strengths. Disagree with this conclusion if you want. But please don’t pretend that you haven’t been given any answers. You have. You just don’t like them.

Ishii

This is basically the same thing over and over again with me and a few others presenting evidence that blames the Muslim film for at least giving the Muslim terrorist jihadist group Ansar al Sharia an excuse to initiate the Benghazi attack …

This idea also that use of mortars cancels the spontaneous aspect is also hogwash because my research has revealed at least to me that mortar fire occurred late in the attack.

Finally though, something I’ve been meaning to do, but just got too tired of researching to no avail with the opposition in this thread unimpressed by anything we present;
That is, also because the opposition here at times even acts/sounds like they don’t believe that the negative response to the Muslim video in the Muslim world was any big deal;
So I’m posting here videos of the rioting that occurred which was all over the news including “fox news” just before/during the Benghazi attack:

bing.com/videos/search?q=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&qpvt=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&FORM=VDRE

bing.com/videos/search?q=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&qpvt=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=52C0C6D207DDB63E74CC52C0C6D207DDB63E74CC

bing.com/videos/search?q=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&qpvt=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=3372B2F31E8DCD6E90043372B2F31E8DCD6E9004

bing.com/videos/search?q=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&qpvt=videos+of+muslim+world+riots+over+muslim+film&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=EC4479077A34D05296E2EC4479077A34D05296E2

In conclusion I’m also saying that I see no more that can be said because it’s basically all been said over and over
Except the opposition here has used the words “lie and liars” quite often
And one person early in the thread told me to “look in the mirror”
So I can only think at long last to return the compliment.

rex

 

[qui_est_ce]

This is basically the same thing over and over again with me and a few others presenting evidence that blames the Muslim film for at least giving the Muslim terrorist jihadist group Ansar al Sharia an excuse to initiate the Benghazi attack …

This idea also that use of mortars cancels the spontaneous aspect is also hogwash because my research has revealed at least to me that mortar fire occurred late in the attack.

Finally though, something I’ve been meaning to do, but just got too tired of researching to no avail with the opposition in this thread unimpressed by anything we present;
That is, also because the opposition here at times even acts/sounds like they don’t believe that the negative response to the Muslim video in the Muslim world was any big deal;
So I’m posting here videos of the rioting the occurred which was all over the news including “fox news” just before/during the Benghazi attack:

In conclusion I’m also saying that I see no more that can be said because it’s basically all been said over and over
Except the opposition here has used the words “lie and liars” quite often
And one person early in the thread told me to “look in the mirror”
So I can only think at long last to return the compliment.

rex

You still haven’t answered the following:

We really still don’t know what happened. The story is dribbling out because we are FORCING our “transparent” administration to give us the information.

• We don’t know why Stevens was in Benghazi
• We don’t know what the meeting with the Turkish official was about
• Conveniently the Turkish official left before the attack began
• We were told it was a spontaneous demonostration, when in fact, the weapson used tell us differently
• We don’t know who gave the stand down order

In the end, SMG, if it’s so petty, why all the lies and obfuscations? Just tell the truth and move on. The silence by the administration who promised to be open and transparent is deafening. Nixon’s lies were a lot more petty, he stepped down.

Just answer my bullet points. Can you do that?

 

[TaurusRex]

You still haven’t answered the following:

IMVHO you don’t read my posts, because at least a few of your points/questions were answered
And one as a matter of fact in my last post above …
I’m done :banghead:
to no avail against debaters that refuse to see the truth even if it’s handed to them on a silver platter as far as I’m concerned.

rex

 

[qui_est_ce]

IMVHO you don’t read my posts, because at least a few of your points/questions were answered
And one as a matter of fact in my last post above …
I’m done :banghead:
to no avail against debaters that refuse to see the truth even if it’s handed to them on a silver platter as far as I’m concerned.

rex

I have read your posts. They are full of speculation and your personal opinions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Did Bush put out a lie that it was an internet video that was responsible? Did Bush go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? Did Bush send his SOS to the parents to repeat the lie. Did Bush send his ambassador to the Sunday morning talk shows to repeat the lie? Did Bush go to the UN and continue the lie about the video? Did Bush suppress all investigations into what happened?

We really still don’t know what happened. The story is dribbling out because we are FORCING our “transparent” administration to give us the information.

• We don’t know why Stevens was in Benghazi
• We don’t know what the meeting with the Turkish official was about
• Conveniently the Turkish official left before the attack began
• We were told it was a spontaneous demonostration, when in fact, the weapson used tell us differently
• We don’t know who gave the stand down order

Personally, I would additionally like to know why we aided the rebels in overthrowing the Libyan government in the first place. Well, okay, France thought it would be in their interests, but we really don’t know the details on that. Nor do we know what was “in it” for America. Quaddhaffi (sp?) was cooperating with the west against Islamic terrorists. They were his enemies too. This administration had to know the rebels were Islamists with Al Quaeda ties; that we were arming them and otherwise aiding them; that they were already strong in Benghazi and that our attack on Libya would be helpful to them. So why did we do it?

Does Obama think all movements are good as long as they’re “indigenous” or bad if they might serve some national interest?

And was that the reason we were in Benghazi trying to buy the weapons back in order to send them to rebels in Syria? Hard to imagine a more foolish expectation than to expect terrorists to turn over their arms. Even assuming the Syrian rebels were something other than Islamic radicals at the time, did U.S. manufacturers run out of metal with which to make weapons? Or did Obama expect a “twofer”, get them back from dangerous people we supported and give them to another potentially dangerous group we’re supporting?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This idea also that use of mortars cancels the spontaneous aspect is also hogwash because my research has revealed at least to me that mortar fire occurred late in the attack.

rex

From Wiki- "The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks.[53] The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Sharia, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi.[53]

The area outside the compound before the assault was quiet; one Libyan guard who was wounded in the attack was quoted as saying “there wasn’t a single ant outside.”[54]"

and- “About 9:40 pm (local time) large numbers of armed men shouting “Allāhu Akbar” descended on the compound from multiple directions.[54][63] The attackers lobbed grenades over the wall and entered the compound under a barrage of automatic weapons fire and RPGs, backed by truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns.”

and- “The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the safe haven.[64] They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires.[64][65].”

So we have a “spontaneous” attack that begins with the streets being devoid of life and the first actions of it being the area cordoned off and the usage of “technicals” (civilian vehicles with heavy weapons mounted on them) with the attacks coming from multiple directions and with the equipment needed to burn the place brought with the attackers.

Granted I only served 9 years in the military with combat units, and only half of that time was as an officer in a combat MOS, and I only deployed twice to Iraq in a combat unit with a combat mission, but none of that speaks to me as a “spontaneous” attack.

 

[mary_bobo]

IMVHO you don’t read my posts, because at least a few of your points/questions were answered
And one as a matter of fact in my last post above …
I’m done :banghead:
to no avail against debaters that refuse to see the truth even if it’s handed to them on a silver platter as far as I’m concerned.

rex

Your “truth” is your own opinion. It is not supported by facts.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Personally, I would additionally like to know why we aided the rebels in overthrowing the Libyan government in the first place. Well, okay, France thought it would be in their interests, but we really don’t know the details on that. Nor do we know what was “in it” for America. Quaddhaffi (sp?) was cooperating with the west against Islamic terrorists. They were his enemies too. This administration had to know the rebels were Islamists with Al Quaeda ties; that we were arming them and otherwise aiding them; that they were already strong in Benghazi and that our attack on Libya would be helpful to them. So why did we do it?

Does Obama think all movements are good as long as they’re “indigenous” or bad if they might serve some national interest?

And was that the reason we were in Benghazi trying to buy the weapons back in order to send them to rebels in Syria? Hard to imagine a more foolish expectation than to expect terrorists to turn over their arms. Even assuming the Syrian rebels were something other than Islamic radicals at the time, did U.S. manufacturers run out of metal with which to make weapons? Or did Obama expect a “twofer”, get them back from dangerous people we supported and give them to another potentially dangerous group we’re supporting?

It’s really hard to know what Obama thinks. I know what he SAYS. But he certainly can’t seem to own up to the many (un?)intended consequences of his policies.

 

[qui_est_ce]

From Wiki- "The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks.[53] The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Sharia, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi.[53]

The area outside the compound before the assault was quiet; one Libyan guard who was wounded in the attack was quoted as saying “there wasn’t a single ant outside.”[54]"

and- “About 9:40 pm (local time) large numbers of armed men shouting “Allāhu Akbar” descended on the compound from multiple directions.[54][63] The attackers lobbed grenades over the wall and entered the compound under a barrage of automatic weapons fire and RPGs, backed by truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns.”

and- “The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the safe haven.[64] They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires.[64][65].”

So we have a “spontaneous” attack that begins with the streets being devoid of life and the first actions of it being the area cordoned off and the usage of “technicals” (civilian vehicles with heavy weapons mounted on them) with the attacks coming from multiple directions and with the equipment needed to burn the place brought with the attackers.

Granted I only served 9 years in the military with combat units, and only half of that time was as an officer in a combat MOS, and I only deployed twice to Iraq in a combat unit with a combat mission, but none of that speaks to me as a “spontaneous” attack.

Thanks so much for giving us first-hand information.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Thanks so much for giving us first-hand information.

One of the lessons I learned from Iraq was that empty streets that shouldn’t be empty = planned attack to take place shortly or is already underway.

 

[qui_est_ce]

One of the lessons I learned from Iraq was that empty streets that shouldn’t be empty = planned attack to take place shortly or is already underway.

The way you described it in your post, I could almost feel the silence. Heavy.

Thanks for your service.

 

[TaurusRex]

One of the lessons I learned from Iraq was that empty streets that shouldn’t be empty = planned attack to take place shortly or is already underway.

“Or is already underway” sounds “spontaneous” enough to me ,
do you folks actually believe that for the attack to be “spontaneous” the streets had to be full of rioters and they had to start by throwing sticks and stones?

Excuse me if I on my way to the dinner table.

rex

 

[WKW_69]

Most of the american public doesn’t seem to care.

People die in war. What do you want to see done? 10,000 Americans have died in the war on terror over the last twenty years. Why are these four deaths so important?

 

[qui_est_ce]

People die in war. What do you want to see done? 10,000 Americans have died in the war on terror over the last twenty years. Why are these four deaths so important?

Did Bush put out a lie that it was an internet video that was responsible? Did Bush go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? Did Bush send his SOS to the parents to repeat the lie. Did Bush send his ambassador to the Sunday morning talk shows to repeat the lie? Did Bush go to the UN and continue the lie about the video? Did Bush suppress all investigations into what happened?

We really still don’t know what happened. The story is dribbling out because we are FORCING our “transparent” administration to give us the information.

• We don’t know why Stevens was in Benghazi
• We don’t know what the meeting with the Turkish official was about
• Conveniently the Turkish official left before the attack began
• We were told it was a spontaneous demonostration, when in fact, the weapson used tell us differently
• We don’t know who gave the stand down order

In the end, SMG, if it’s so petty, why all the lies and obfuscations? Just tell the truth and move on. The silence by the administration who promised to be open and transparent is deafening. Nixon’s lies were a lot more petty, he stepped down.

Typical. No gerrymandering by Dems. They are as pure as the driven snow.

Just answer my bullet points. Can you do that?

 

[qui_est_ce]

“Or is already underway” sounds “spontaneous” enough to me ,
do you folks actually believe that for the attack to be “spontaneous” the streets had to be full of rioters and they had to start by throwing sticks and stones?

Excuse me if I on my way to the dinner table.

rex

Sorry you feel an actual veteran’s account so funny.