|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Benghazi again...again|
Posted - 1/14/2014 12:43:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
The declassification of top secret documents pertaining to the US consulate in Benghazi make it unequivocally clear that top US officials knew within minutes that the attack was perpetrated by terrorists, NOT people demonstrating against a supposed anti-Muslim video.
General Carter Ham, head of AFRICOM, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta agreed "within minutes" that it was a terrorist attack and all three briefed President Obama shortly thereafter.
But, as we all know, the Obama administration spent the next two weeks trying to sell a false narrative to the American people and to the world regarding the attack. Susan Rice of the State Department toured all the talking head shows on the Sunday following the attack saying that it was a group of demonstrators upset with what they thought was an anti-Muslim video shown in the US by an Egyptian Christian.
This, of course, was the same fabrication that President Obama tried to feed to the United Nations in an in-person address some two weeks after the incident.
There are probably not enough crows available to feed all the people on here who have been trying to deny these facts. When is the left going to acknowledge that it has been deceived by Obama? Or...perhaps more accurately...that it has been deceived by its own fervently wishful thinking that the president was truthful with the American people?
He was not.
Posted - 1/14/2014 3:14:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
Still not a scandal...
And again, what does it matter if it was a terrorist attack or terrorists taking advantage of a demonstration to launch an attack?
I understand that you've never served, and would never understand the "fog of war," but with at least two attacks earlier in the day at two other U.S. diplomatic outposts -- as a result of the video -- that there would be confusion thousands of miles away in Washington.
Note also, that as hard as FOX tries to stretch the facts here, these are still the opinions of what GEN Ham thought at the time -- and not necessarily the way the facts stacked up in the days and weeks that followed.
And what exactly IS the scandal you keep trying to make materialize through wishful thinking?
I just don't get it.
U.S. security teams responded and engaged the attackers in less than 30 minutes.
Obama called it an act of terrorism in his first appearance after the attack happened!
There is no "there" there.
Posted - 1/14/2014 4:15:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
How Does the IPCC Get Away With This?
First covering up global cooling now Benghazi?
Don't they know this will cause bitter frustrated old white men to experience a spike in their blood pressure?
Indubitably egregious for all pals and dearies.
Posted - 1/14/2014 6:53:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Obama called it an act of terrorism in his first appearance after the attack happened!
The president got four pinocchios for that lie. (You should get five for repeating leftwing falsehoods.)
About that New York Times Benghazi investigation....Epic fail...
Posted - 1/14/2014 7:00:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Checking the Constitution
...I don't find grounds for impeachment in a word choice after a terroristic event.
Further, I don't find anything illegal in there either.
What, pray tell, warrants the beefaroni that you're spewing here? This is critical to anything...why?
Posted - 1/14/2014 8:54:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
And Checking the Constitution
I found no grounds for deporting someone so anal retentive they propably still have a Twinkie stuck up there since the fifth grade. Damn. And I really looked.
Benghazi. Again?? I admit, a small woodpecker like voice inside me was all ready to go full tilt cricket bat against cruize again on this; but when I read "How Does the IPCC Get Away With This?"...the spit laugh brought me back to my senses. Pointless as a bocce ball.
Posted - 1/14/2014 9:33:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
when the establishment media/leftwing narrative on obamaclintonghazi falls apart(yet again)
troo-beleevers tell us "no big deal" there is no there there". except there is.
facts remains. obama lied. clinton lied. no matter how hard the media tries to cover for goddess hillary- her anointment is anything but certain.
Posted - 1/14/2014 10:02:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
he called it an "act of terrorism."
Only TEA Partiers who want to parse his words for wishful thinking think otherwise.
Posted - 1/15/2014 1:09:47 AM | show profile | flag this post
Fact checkers at WAPO are "TEA Partiers"?
Posted - 1/15/2014 9:02:48 AM | show profile | flag this post
You really have to parse his words...
to reach the conclusion you're arguing. The WaPo Factchecker also parsed his words. That article has been roundly criticized for that.
But again, what does it matter? Americans died, why are you arguing over whether a word was used or not? Why are you more interested in "getting" Obama than in getting the people who attacked the post in Benghazi?
I've not seen a single comment from anyone on the right talking about that?
Posted - 1/15/2014 10:41:29 AM | show profile | flag this post
etaoin, "what does it matter?"
Gee, where have I heard that before? That is the official party line and I am glad to see you remembered it.
Maybe the administration should have focused on finding the people responsible immediately after the attack instead of covering their asses. But then this administration is all about image over substance. That's why they still refuse to call the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist attack, it was a "workplace incident". Too bad for the service people wounded in the attack since they cannot collect pay for being wounded in the line of duty. But like you say, "what does it matter? " Sometimes I wished we had a President that actually understood why these things do matter. The families of those killed and wounded in these incidents will be glad to explain it.
Don't bother responding, I already know what you will say. Just needed to get that off my chest. After a while all this spin just pisses me off.
Posted - 1/15/2014 11:54:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
that demands a response.
The search for those responsible began immediately -- many were engaged within 30 minutes of the start of the attack. It has continued daily since the attack.
Remember, we sat through all of Bush's administration -- eight years -- before we caught suspects in the USS Cole bombing and killed bin Laden.
It takes time.
The facts behind Benghazi don't live up to the original conspiracy theories and scandal of the "Bengazi Truthers" who keep trying to turn an attack into some kind of scandal.
There is no scandal there.
And yes, the line you will continue to hear about whether Obama called it a terrorist ATTACK or just a plain ATTACK will be the same -- WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
What Hillary Clinton was pointing out was that it was an ATTACK. Doesn't matter whether it was planned months in advance, grew out of one of MULTIPLE protests over the video, or was a target of opportunity when Libyan militiamen took advantage of a situation.
What matters is that the U.S. is pursuing suspects behind the attack. That IS happening.
But the facts are showing, more and more, that there was NO al Qaeda involvement in long term planning.
It's just silly seeing Republicans going after Benghazi like 9/11 Truthers went after the 9/11 attacks -- both groups claim it was some kind of "inside job."
And neither can be taken seriously.
Posted - 1/15/2014 12:01:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
This Controversy is Being Ruined!
It should be blowing up! Impeachment! Hearings! Shouting! Gnashing of teeth! Rending of garments!
But it is being ruined by biased facts and liberal accuracy. The truth keeps getting out despite yeoman's work by Fox News to fudge and obfuscate information and move what should be the inevitable ouster of Obama, end of Obamacare, lowering of taxes and end of fluoridated water to the fore!
It's like the whole global warming thing. All that darn evidence.
It's egregious. You'll indubitably agree.
Posted - 1/15/2014 12:01:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well said, blackedtaped.
Most people want justice for what happen in Benghazi.
Only people on the right want to hold this administration accountable for ignoring security warnings and lying to Americans...
BUT BUSH!!!!!!! BUT BUSH!!!!!!! Yes Dems, i feel the same way.
Posted - 1/15/2014 12:20:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
Two thoughts, etaoin
I don't remember anyone in the Bush administration blaming terrorists attacks on a group of protestors. And I don't remember a time when the Bush administration was not willing to admit that a terrorist group had attacked Americans.
And here is the other thing, I thought you guys wanted better than Bush when you voted for Obama. Your regular "well look what Bush did" mantra rings hollow. If I did not know better I would swear you are just making excuses.
But I will say you did not disappoint in your post. The spin it around and blame the accusers has been page one in the democratic playbook since the Clinton administration. How about throwing in a "vast right wing conspiracy" just for old times sake?
Posted - 1/15/2014 12:24:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
facts remains..............................even through fudguration and obfuscation-dear leader can't cover up benghazi . even with biased facts and liberal accuracy- these facts remains.
even with a now discredited ny times investaration-facts remains.
dear leader finds these facts remains, egregiously, indubitably.
"But the facts are showing, more and more, that there was NO al Qaeda involvement"
troo-beleevers are blinded by their faith. reality shows a terrorist link. facts remains the video played little to no role in what in benghazi.
Posted - 1/15/2014 2:33:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
Blackedtaped, let me see if I understand you correctly ... you wanted the administration to let the terrorists know everthing that we knew about the attack. Funny, the best criminal investigators don't release all they know to the public, but what do they know. They want to catch the climinals. You want to bash the President and SOS.
Let's not mention the gop slashing of overseas embassy and counslate security funding (said in your best gop preibus whiney tone) "because we're broke".
Blackedtaped, I don't know why people think you're stupid.
Posted - 1/15/2014 3:40:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
please show where and how the New York Times investigation has been "discredited."
It hasn't been. All we've seen posted here are comments from GEN Ham demonstrating the confusion going on at the time of the attacks -- not the end result of ANY investigation.
And Blacked, again, what does it matter whether Obama came out and spoonfed you the line that "This was a terrorist attack." It was pretty obvious that it was an act of terrorism -- Obama said as much in his first comments to the nation the following day.
The fact that you and others on the right wing fringe can't understand simple English does not make a scandal.
The fact remains, there was no scandal. Read the New York Times investigation instead of relying on the rumor mill of Rep Issa and the rest of the "Benghazi Truthers." I mean, these guys still believe Obama was born in Kenya!
Posted - 1/15/2014 3:41:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
Not at all, nleer
What I wanted was my government, the one that claimed they were going to be the most open government EVER, to not lie to me about what happened. Trust me when I say that telling me "We don't know what happened" would be much better than "This is not an expression of hostility in the broadest sense toward the United States or to U.S. policy,"
Of course they did know what happened. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pentagon-labeled-benghazi-terrorist-attack-obama-administration-wavered-newly-declassified-tes-article-1.1579141
But then of course "What does it matter"?
Posted - 1/15/2014 4:03:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
eatoin, may be it may neve been obvious to you
But it seems it was not to President Obama.
From an interview with Steve Kroft immediately after the Rose Garden "Act of terror" speech on September 12:
"Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.
Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
Obama: Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other."
So President Obama admitted he refused to call it an act of terrorism.
Posted - 1/15/2014 4:13:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
BIPARTISAN Senate Report...
now clears the White House of lying.
Yep, the bipartisan report the Senate Intelligence Committee released today, "sought to clarify accusations about the response to the attack by the White House. It blamed intelligence agencies for incorrect talking points instead of administration officials, who Republicans have probed and slammed mainly for intentionally covering up the reason for the attack."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/senate-benghazi-report-102202.html#ixzz2qV32n5Pw
Read the full report here, blacked (in case you don't want to be "spoonfed"): http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
And blacked, I see nothing, nada, zero in that quote denying it was a terrorist attack. I see a lot of restraint in jumping to conclusions to name a particular group -- whether it was al Qaeda (appears it was not) or a Libyan militia group that'd fought in the just finished revolution (appears several members were there).
Posted - 1/15/2014 4:17:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
The evidence is piling up...
that the "Benghazi Truthers" have nothing to stand on, but wishful thinking that there is the chance to make political hay out of the deaths of four Americans who died serving their country.
We now have an exhaustive, months-long investigation from the Times, in which eyewitnesses to the attack on the post were tracked down and interviewed.
And now, a BIPARTISAN report that says it was the intelligence community -- as the Washington Post reported a year ago -- that issued the original talking points to protect their clandestine efforts to go after the attackers.
This has gone from being a nontroversy from the right to a full blown conspiracy theory for the fringe.
Posted - 1/15/2014 4:54:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
etaoin, what this report shows..
Is that the administration was getting all kinds of information regarding the attack. The wise and prudent thing would have been to simply say "We don't know, it is too early to speculate". And that I would understand and respect. I don't see anything wrong with the President not calling it a terrorist attack without all the information, just don't try and tell me he did when he clearly admitted he did not.
But here is the problem I do have, rather than just say "We don't know" administration officials kept telling us it was not a terrorist attack. Repeatedly over the days following the attack Obama, Clinton, and others within the administration continued "the mob reaction to a film" narrative based on little or no real intelligence reports to back up that claim. Heck Obama even went on the Tonight Show telling the movie response story. According to the Senate report, there were reports as early as September 15 indicating there were no protests that it was an organized attack. However the administration ignored those reports focusing instead on mob protests.
Now of course the administration can shift the focus from the total failure of the State Department and the intelligence community to properly protect our citizens to the idea that the President lied to the American people. As you have done so well that charge can easily be shifted into "just another crazy conspiracy" theory. You guys are good, I have to give you that.
Thanks for posting the link to the actual report. I do prefer reading those things for myself.
Posted - 1/15/2014 9:36:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
I still think you're being 'selective', lets say in your observations.
"etaoin, "what does it matter?" Gee, where have I heard that before? That is the official party line". Not sure what "party" you're referring to, but as I have always stressed, if you put that line in context, it's nothing that every government official anywhere anytime hasn't said after a tragedy ("What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.") Sounds like a typical Bush/Cheney comment after 9/11 doesn't it? (Or a chemical spill, or school shooting, etc etc)
Another thing. "And I don't remember a time when the Bush administration was not willing to admit that a terrorist group had attacked Americans." So.....somehow "admitting" that clears the proverbial slate?? Besides the fact that the worst terrorist attack on the US happened under Bush...there were 13 "Benghazis" under Bush. Consulates, embassies, diplomats. I don't remember such a furor over those attacks as we have with Behngazi. Why is that?
Pick a complaint and stick to it will ya? When Obama spoke of an act or terror (three times) right after the act of terror, he wasn't specific enough for you. Okay. We disagree on that one, But "somehow "telling me "We don't know what happened" would be much better" is also a critique....when...in the interview you cited, he says "Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans"
Huh? You say he didn't call it a terror attack, but he did. And you say why don't you tell me 'We don't know', but he did.
"Now of course the administration can shift the focus from the total failure of the State Department and the intelligence community to properly protect our citizens" Wow. You're not asking much there are you. 9/11?? Scores of terrorist attacks under Bush? No Issa hearings. Benghazi?? "Failure" to protect.
Obviously, If anyone thinks every terrorist attack can be prevented--anywhere--anytime--whatever the spark--they're kidding themselves. And it will happen (tragically and unfortunately) under the next Republican President. But I'm sure that will be Obama's fault.
Posted - 1/15/2014 10:18:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
Why is that? Why is that?
A US ambassador was killed. That is why...