Okay, let's say we
all agree that the attack on the U.S Embassy in Benghazi, Lybia was a cover-up, that the storyline given by the Obama Administration and repeated on the Sunday talk shows was indeed a cover-up orchestrated by CIA officials within the Obama Administration. Now what?
What's the end-game for Republicans on this issue?
I mean, yes, it's tragic that four Americans lost their lives, but what exactly do Republicans in Congress really hope to gain by getting their "gotcha" witnesses to say "Yes, officials within the White House knew this wasn't some random attack sparked by some anti-Islamic video"?
I've read a good portion of the emails and other details on the incident and I'm still trying to understand even after these new witnesses testify of what they saw or knew what folks like Rep. Issa hopes to gain here. A confession by the President himself?
Obama watched the live feed from an UAV that was above Benghazi while our consulate was under attack.
Due to lax security and ignoring reports from his intelligence community GWB allowed the biggest US civilian death toll from a single attack on american soil on september 11th 2001. Of course, the right doesn't like blaming GWB for that but if Obama is this responsible for benghazi certainly GWB is that responsible for 9/11. Still benghazi didn't happen in the continental US, nor did we have control over the areas where it did happen like we did with 9/11, but that just makes 9/11 all the worse for george.
Never really did understand the liberal
rationale here given that they stained their underpants after 9/11 when Bush enacted the laws and regulations that would have been needed to stop 9/11.
When liberals can't seem to grasp the necessity of these heightened security procedures AFTER 9/11 there is little hope that they would have supported them before 9/11.
Benghazi, on the other hand, is just common sense and required no extraordinary means to avoid. It simply required having a security force to protect a consulate in a war zone.
What Benghazi tells me is that the President and Secretary of State vastly under estimated the threat to the Consulate before the attack because they were under a self delusion that their activity in Libya had pacified the country. When it turned out that the threats against the consulate were real and that their negligence had lead to 4 deaths they immediately tried to paint the attack as unforeseeable and the result of a video on the internet in order to save face leading into the election.
So, in part, the Benghazi cover up is about the scurrilous word games the president played with the Benghazi attack to mitigate his Administrations incompetence, but the bigger part of the Benghazi cover up is about the atrocious mishandling of the crisis in real time and the detachment the president had with the entire 7 hour ordeal.
Oh I think they knew how dangerous it was and just rolled the dice so to speak that nothing would happen prior to the election.
Hell the Consolate had already been attacked prior to 9/11.
WHERE WAS OBAMA, WHAT WAS HE DOING, AND WHY DON'T WE KNOW AFTER ALL THESE MONTHS?First:
Bob Schieffer: Today only on Face the Nation, startling new details about the Benghazi attack from the number two American official in Libya...
We'll get new details today and more insight into the stunning contradictions between the president of Libya and Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice when they appeared after the attack on Face the Nation.
Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf: This was preplanned, predetermined.
Susan Rice: We did not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...i-and-gay-athletes-issa-rogers-ruppersberger/
We have talked about Benghazi and it is about the amount we have talked about benghazi that matters, not that we have arrived at the truth. We have talked about it far more than we needed to because we know this is one HUGE skid mark in Obama's drawers and we will do our very best to rally around our boy wonder..
You have no new evidence in regards to it, the stuff that came out during the past does not count. Bob Schieffer using the word COVERUP on Face the Nation (CBS) does not count. It's not "new" unless we SUPER DRONES say it's new.
We know that the compound was not secure and damn I cannot believe I typed that. We know the people there wanted more security and damn I cannot believe I typed that. We even know it wasn't provided to them for budgetary reasons that is a load of BS, because even I know National Security and security of our diplomatic outposts is Job #1, but hey... Libs lie because we can... Oh!, and we are pretty sure Clinton would have seen the request for security even if she did not approve it and damn I cannot believe I typed that.
What more is there... besides the lies deceit and that whopper of a testimony from Hillary... Ugh Rice... Ugh Obama... ugh this sucks.
Do you have some new evidence of more wrongdoing or that it is something more than 4 people dying in hostile foreign land due to defensive weakness? Of course you don't, and this is why you resort to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and try to make a story out of nothing. Man am I good at this ignorance thing... I'll just ignore what just came out from the whistleblower and CBS and is all over the internet and TV this weekend.
Benghazi... is that where they make Mercedes Benz's...?
WOW! that sounds serious, I guess old Bobby Schieffer has you hooked. :2razz:
What, you didn't say anything or rebutt anything, so I figured you had nothing to say to refute what i said. Feel free to actually refute my statements in the future instead of some lame ploy.
No, actually please do go through it for us. Explain how this person knows something that proves that this is more than just a state department screw up that killed a couple people in a violent foreign land. Because that has happened to every president in the past half century, and if obama has only lost 4 people to it he is doing pretty good compared to clinton, Buish Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, and many others. Explain to us how these 4 deaths even compare to 9/11 where bush jr. ignored reports that the attack was coming, and allowed for 3000 civilian deaths and a strike within america from america. Then explain to us why you were struck so silent when the information about his coverup came out. Because we would all love to hear why this is so much more important. Don't let me stop you from actually making your case.
If all you are going to do is lame word substitution don't get mad at me because you cannot even come up with a bad excuse for your hypocrisy.
Maybe if you weren't doing something similar to arguing with an empty chair and losing like your hero has been reduced to, you might have actually not wasted your time with a tactic that really wasn't very hard to counter.
... or he didn't. Not sure which would be worse.
That's one of the questions Congress and the "informed American voters" have been asking for the past eight months. Where was Obama from 5:00 P.M. EDST to the time he went to bed on 9-11-12 and what was he doing ?
What's the big secret ? Is Obama trying to hide something from Congress and the American people ?
Now that's the thing, isn't it? We don't know EXACTLY what happened. What it appears so far is that a decision was made about allocating military and diplomatic forces. Was the wrong decision made? It would appear so, but then hindsight is 20/20.
Decisions about military deployments can be mistaken, but they are made. They will be second guessed sometimes, and that's a good thing. Unless there was INTENT to see them die, I can't imagine how that's an impeachable crime.
Yeah, you are probably right. They also
knew that the Al Qaeda flag was flying over government buildings in the
vicinity. That alone would be reason for heightened security.
Or, if the Libyan Government was denying them the ability to put combat read troops in the US consulate as they claim, then they could have chosen to leave Libya. But, golly gee, they just couldn't leave Libya for security concerns after declaring the area pacified.... not with an election to win...
That's one of the questions Congress and the "informed American voters" have been asking for the past eight months. Where was Obama from 5:00 P.M. EDST to the time he went to bed on 9-11-12 and what was he doing ?
What's the big secret ? Is Obama trying to hide something from Congress and the American people ?
Wait, is this what you people have been whining about all along? Whether or not it was labeled a terrorist attack?
Regardless of your thought on Benghazi or the amount of coverage it's generating right now, are you seriously playing dumb about the notion that one of the primary issues people had at the onset of it, and voiced routinely, was the fact that the Administration seemingly purposefully attempted to misrepresent it as a spur of the moment protest about a Youtube video gone arwy rather than a planned Al-Qaeda sponsored/linked terrorist attack?
Were there protests in Egypt around the same time over this issue? I think the attackers the use the protests in general as a cover to launch in the attack.
Were there protests in Egypt around the same time over this issue? I think the attackers the use the protests in general as a cover to launch in the attack.
Well, we were already heavily involved in the War Against Women. We simply lacked the assets to mount much of anything else at the time of Benghazi.We know that security requests went out months ahead, and the British had moved out of town a long time for the 9/11 attack.
Post 21 in this same thread.....
See at First Obama said there was no ties to AQ. But then his Own Team.....were the Ones that stated they thought AQ out of Iraq may have been responsible.
US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq.....
U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN.
That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Previously, intelligence officials said there were signs of connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African wing of the terror group.
The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war.
The weakened al Qaeda affiliate has had a resurgence in Iraq since U.S. forces left the country at the end of last year. The group had used Libya as a source for fighters. In a 2008 cable, Stevens described a nearby town of Derna as "a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters" for al Qaeda in Iraq.
The latest intelligence suggests the core group of suspects from the first wave of the attack on the Benghazi mission numbered between 35 to 40. Around a dozen of the attackers are believed to be connected to either al Qaeda in Iraq or al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the government official said.
According to the official, others in the core group are suspected of having ties to the Libyan group Ansar al-Sharia, and many of them are believed to be Egyptian jihadis.
And just two hours later, one of the e-mails indicated the Libyan extremist group Ansar al Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on social media websites. "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the e-mail said.
Moreover, intelligence officials do not believe Ansar al-Sharia is solely responsible with indications now that some of the attackers were associated with al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and an Egyptian jihad network.....snip~
US Intel believes some Benghazi attackers tied to al Qaeda in Iraq - CNN.com
Which doesn't explain why Obama never took that Sunni Cleric in from Egypt for questioning since he used a social media site.....to call for rising up against the US.
On the 18th of Sept Hezbollah called for more. Also you forget.....al-Zawahiri already had released the Video calling on those in Libya to take revenge for al-libi.
Were there protests in Egypt around
the same time over this issue? I think the attackers the use the protests in general as a cover to launch in the attack.
Do we have to accept every video
that al-zawahiri makes as truth. He and his ilk have made video threats before.
Do we have to accept every video that al-zawahiri makes as truth. He and his ilk have made video threats before.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?