The only thing that could make them turn away from him was if an email surfaced actually showing collusion between one of the networks or MSNBC or CNN and this administration to conceal or distort the truth. At that point the network or cable outfit would conduct a token firing and then -- just to PROVE that it was not politically biased -- actually start doing its damn job. But that's not likely to happen even though the man who runs CBS' news division is the brother of the man who issued the latest infamous smoking gun e-mail. It's obvious that there was collusion but it's not legal proof.
It seems to be entirely beyond some to comprehend that someone would care about the deaths of fellow Americans because they have value and we should care about the welfare of those that serve us. There would be no publicity to worry about if the administration hadn't put out a false politicized narrative which they knew was a lie to get through a presidential campaign. Laugh out loud! Since when is investigating a politicized campaign to avoid responsibility for our embassy attack "exploiting" anyone? Your absurd prose doesn't cover up the irresponsible wish for it all to just go away.
Gosh, where to begin. You chose the worst possible sources that did not address a single 'not debatable" point that I made. The first is the Liberal Fox News bashing service Media Matters, and the other is that idiot Senator Grayson. The Media Matters opinion piece dealt with Threat Warnings issued by the CIA that were ignored by the State Department, and a report of a stand down order. The so called Bi-partisan Committee, and your source, ignored the fact that the CIA warning were apart of the first draft of the Talking Points. The point was removed because it made the State Department look bad. As far as the stand down is concerned, as far as we know, the article is correct. But the Embassy's Security Reaction Team was given a "hold in place" order at the Tripoli, and several sources at Africom has stated that they were waiting for State Department authorization to enter Libya. As far as the idiot Grayson is concerned, I have already proved that his attempt to pin the whole thing on the Ambassador is based on lies, and completely ignored the testimony of Hicks. Hicks testified that then Sec of State Clinton ordered Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi in order to set up a permanent mission. They had planned to announce the mission during a visit by Clinton the following January. The attempt to blame the Ambassador for his own death just shows low the Democrats will sink to get Hillary elected as President. None of the sources you listed addressed a single "not debatable" that I listed. Does that mean that you can't read, or that you agree that they are "not debatable"?
Actually, no. It was an act of terror by Libyan rebels. We gave them most of these arms. It wasn't planned out, but spontaneous. By the way, if you're thinking that this attack had anything to do with Al Qaeda, you're wrong.
It was planned and well-coordinated. Please tell us kmvj why the administration lied about a video when they knew it didn't cause the attack. This did have something to do with Al Quaeda or related groups. Had Obama been Nixon, Congress would be debating impeachment.
And how do you know this? President Megarif of Libya said that this was an obvious attempt to destabilize the Libyan govt by Libyans who would not have acted without AQ affiliated support. How can you say different?
Things you MUST believe in order to credit Obama with honor and executive prowess with respect to Benghazi: 1. The nonexistent 'protest' meme DID NOT ORIGINATE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. --- If it did, then the entire thing is clearly a political CYA rearguard. The CIA won't admit to including it in the talking points. Every indication is that --- it's a product of the WH. 2. The nonexistent 'protest' meme was still the most plausible cause on the Sunday following the terrorist attacks. --- I don't know how anyone that can fog a mirror AND read believes this. 3. The nonexistent 'protest' meme was still the most plausible cause on the day Obama addressed the UN, roughly two weeks later. --- His language was a hedged as possible but his intention clearly was to blame the video even then. Any of the above fall and it all falls. Things you SHOULD believe in order to credit Obama with honor and executive prowess with respect to Benghazi: 1. Obama would never lie to all of America for political gain. --- LOL. 2. No aid was sent during the attack AND no orders to aid were confirmed because that's what a competent CIC would do. --- Not a single commander has confirmed an order to even assess aid missions. New information suggests Obama was NEVER in the Situation Room. 3. Susan Rice was the logical choice to do the Sunday shows. --- Laughable. It was Hitlary's job. She knew she would fry for the lie. I'll leave it to others to add to this far from complete list.
400 US surface-to-air missiles were 'STOLEN' from Libya during the Benghazi attack and are 'now in the hands of Al Qaeda', claims whistleblower. That's likely the reason we haven't seen or heard from the survivors.
LOL ummmm STRAWMAN ALERT! WARNING! Well if you think Donald Duck did this then you are just flat out wrong. Everyone knows a duck especially a cartoon one is incapable of firing a shoulder fired grenade launcher. So your actual stance is, it was an impromptu attack, caused from a youtube video but carried out by terrorists with weapons we gave them that just happened to coincide on September 11th which was also a day in the history of the United States in which terrorists also carried out a carefully planned attack on the United States. Is this correct? P.S. We know there are terrorists in this world that want to kill us. Its no secret. The issue is the fact that Obama attempted to cover up his actions not the fact we were attacked. The guy is so numb in the brain that he doesn't even realize that he would have gotten more votes if he acted like a leader and simply sent help to these people.
Thanks a lot. It looks like your post just got Donald Duck fired for inappropriate 'tweets' about something involving Israel, and missiles. I hope you're happy. http://alray.ps/en/index.php?act=post&id=3213#.U2bJeVc0ruk
If the Benghazi-theorists cared a jot for law and order, Ollie North would still be breaking rocks in maximum security.
So would Obama pal Bill Ayers, for that matter. It's hard to see what Ollie North has to do, however, with a president who is covering up a terrorist incident by blaming it on a common street demonstration in order to preserve his self claimed accomplishment of putting "Al Qaeda on the run". He obviously was wrong.
You know, when I read these different scenarios you list, I say to myself, these folks are so desperate to put blame onto Obama and Clinton, I truly cannot say I have ever in my life ever witnessed this much hate from such a large population of people in my life. I'm going to pick one scenario out of all of them and scrutinize that one, just to let you know how ridiculous all this is. 2b. Sec of State Clinton emailed the Situation room saying that a terrorist group had claimed responsibility for the attack. So (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) what? Has it ever occurred to you, that at that time she was in information gathering mode? Which meant she was doing her job. That period of time was information gathering. At that time, all this nfo coming in were talking points. Some accurate, some not so accurate. "SO"? You and the right keep going down this same dead end road for yourself hundreds of times always getting the same results. You can only beat a dead horse but so much, until the entire country is finally going to say enough is enough. You will have to take your hate elsewhere. No one buys the nonsense as it stands now but the lunatic fringe of the party. Vietor said it the other day. Privately the republicans know it is a losing cause but they still have to milk it, because they have no where else to go.
The only desperation that I see is the responses by the Liberal (we can do no wrong) base covering for the Obama Administration. Your posts are a prime example. I post several "not debatable" points, and your first response is to counter with two links that did not have anything to do with any of the points. Now, you respond with this pure desperation plea for help. I mean come on, surely you don't think this a logical, and well thought out response. She was just doing her job? Really? That's the best that you can come up with? Hillary sent an email to the Whitehouse Situation Room stating Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The next day, a State Department rep was meeting with the Libyan Ambassador to the US. The Ambassador stated that the Libyans believed that the attack was staged by Kaddafi loyalists. The State Department rep told the Ambassador that Ansar al Sharia were responsible. So, "So (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) what?"? That means that Hillary Clinton knew who was behind the attack, and that there was no protest. BTW, do you know who the Obama Administration indicted for the attacks? That's right, the leaders of Ansar al Sharia. So, Hillary had the facts, but chose to present a false narrative about a protest gone bad. There is actually one fact that disproves the "it was all because Obama was not in the Situation Room" scenario. That is that Hillary made her statement blaming the video before Obama made his. That means that there was a coordinated effort to lie about the nature of the attack. Now, I have two questions for you. The State Department, the CIA, and the Military all knew that there was no protest prior to the attack. So, where did the idea of a protest come from? And why did it take nearly two weeks to inform the public of what really happened?
I think it's about incompetence. Incompetence that cost 4 Americans their lives. It's about Tyrone Woods hearing the predator overhead, puts himself in harms way with a laser painting the target, a mortar crew lobbing deadly mortar shell, never knowing the leadership was incompetent enough to send and unarmed one. He got blown up by that same mortar likely wondering why the drone won't fire and take it out. It is about Clinton, it is about a jaw dropping lack of leadership that let this travesty happen. If she can't manage the State Dept without the first U.S. Ambassador being killed in the line of duty since 1979, why would anyone think she's qualified to manage the entire country without the more disastrous results. I think the very last thing we need is her as President.
The number of people believing this will hurt Hillary has risen not declined. The more people are educated as to what happened and why, the less chance we have of voting another known incompetent into the White House.
YES! And it stands for itself too. How do I know that? Because you folks have spun this tire off its wheel a long time ago and it went no where. It does not prove in any way she wasn't doing her job. And that's the bottom line. The right has tried to take it further, but in reality that further doesn't exist. Hence, the desperation of the right. No it doesn't. That's what you folks use to conveniently not understand anything. Those were nothing but talking points trying to logically deduct what happened by exploring all possibilities. WHAT? You folks need to get a life. You really do. This Benghazi made up scandal has gotten the best of you people. Dude, wake up. There is no proof whatsoever of those two lying in coordinated fashion to lie about a video. That is nothing but an opinion. These statements are unbelievable. What good would it have been for the two of them to lie about that, when the two of them are smart enough to know better information was probably on the way? That is like setting your own bear trap you know where it is, then you step in it. Your conclusion about that is off the charts. Two people can't be that stupid to lie up front about information that hasn't all come in yet. It's crazy! And you know it's crazy. That is why everyone knows from the left this has been one ridiculous game you people keep milking. Again, you are foraging for a scandal that doesn't exist. My previous statements have already answered your silly questions.
I guess you'd rather believe in these misrepresentations and outright lies than read say, the BIPARTISAN Senate Select committee on Intelligence report that directly contradicts your narrative. Facts don't seem to matter to you and the other witch hunters, which is not surprising, since continuing to regurgitate unsubstantiated accusations, misrepresentations and outright lies WORKS rather effectively on a big chunkc of the hoi polloi.
A couple dozen Americans were evacuated to a CIA annex after the consulate attack, and then? They just freakin sat there for 8 hours until a chartered Libyan plane came. And they got attacked again while waiting. That is ridiculous and someone needs to pay for that mistake. You say the American people are finished with this. Well just wait till we start hearing from the survivors. Wait till we start hearing more generals with a (ret) next to their name come out and say there was something shameful about Benghazi. Trust me, this has damaged the military, but they, like good soldiers are staying quiet. At least until a (ret) is next to their name.
An A-1 post! I can't wait for an effective advocate like former prosecutor Trent Gowdy to start the work of the new Select Benghazi Committee. The apologists are squirming and complaining now.....but just wait! They ain't seen nothiing' yet!
