Benghazi: A Desperate GOP Attack

Didn't even say that... said that it was sparked by egypt... which was also blamed on the video... on 9/11... and nobody has really questioned it.

I wish someone would read my *******ned thread.

 

Narcissism. Nixon did the same thing. For the rest of my life I will never understand why someone will lie when the truth and admitting it will wash you clean. The American people will forgive a President for his mistakes. They will never forgive a President for lying to them.

 

For the record, that event was on Sept 14th. 3 days, not "weeks" after the Bengazi attack.

 

I have not been following your posts and was not attempting to reply to anything you said.

 

47% of Americans didn't know ObamaCare was the law of the land.

Just watch a "Man in the Streets" piece from Leno or Kimmel. Low-information voters couldn't tell you who the Vice President is.

 

Three days was long enough to find out that the video had nothing to do with the deaths in Benghazi.

This reminds me of the FBI publishing pictures of the two Boston bombers and requesting information on their identity when they had the answer in their own files.

Obama and his administration are shockingly incompetent.

 

No, that is when the RW propaganda took off with it.

Anyone who actually read the original CIA memo knows the initial CIA memo called it a spontaneous occurrence inspired by the Cairo demonstrations. That was what was relied by Rice, and underlies the entire so-called "cover up" nonsense the RW media has been pushing.

But shoot, don't take my word for it. From the ABC link in your own post, here is the first bullet point from the CIA memo:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

There were 12 edits, but it didn't change the core original assessment by the CIA that this was a spontaneous event.

 

. Or, possibly you don't care that this is an orchestrated campaign in which Hicks is a prop?

There is no evidence of anyone being threatened if they spoke up. Quite the opposite.

But you won't hear that on Fox Noise, which is where Hick's "attorney" works. In fact, the attorney dropped the hint for the right wing blogs to pick up and exaggerate, which was her intentions. She has several of these hit campaigns under her belt, and she knows how to play the right wing blogs (not that it's hard). She subsequently produced no evidence of any harassment, and her other suggestion that "attorneys for "whistleblowers" were being denied access to classified documents" turned out to be made up as well.

We were told about the video because there were vast anti American protests across the middle east at the time. Protests in reaction to a video made by a right wing religous bigot in the US and spread around the Islamic world by social media. It was intended to inflame, and it did. Against Americans!

Ambassador Stevens could not say who was attacking them, and the initial claim by the Lybian government turned out to be wrong (which didn't stop several Republican Congressmen from repeating it last week, while competing for thier sound byte).

No one was lied to. The information given out was sparse, to say the least, but it wasn't false.

You're being played.

 

What about the "weeks" you claimed Obama and Clinton were going on about the video? You just made that up and thought you'd get away with it, dincha?

Sept 14 was the same day the original CIA assessment memo was dated.

Nice try though.

 

Oh no man... I am just frustrated that I tried to put a tremendous amount of information into a very small space... but it looks ridiculous.

The problem with conspiracy theory nutters... is that when there is an actual demonstrated conspiracy, assembling a full picture requires a lot of background and fact checking... it looks like some manifesto writing fake moon landing loon wrote it. Nobody wants to read a post with 21 links, no matter how solid the sources.
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ries-solved-dont-click-if-unwilling-read.html

 

Sure. If you want to completely fabricate history, you can make a great case. You should know. The RW propaganda media does it all the time.

Conservatives make sense. If you ignore reality.

 

Obama was still sticking with the bad muslim video weeks later at the UN.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/09/obamas_united_nations_speech_s.html

 

"Shockingly" doesn't even begin to describe it.

On Sept 12, Reuters was interviewing Capt. Fathi al-Obeidi, America's "Libyan on the ground" in Benghazi. He told them everything, including the exact times to the minute when the American rescue force arrived, how many people were involved at the embassy and at the Annex... all of this was in the f'in newspapers on the 13th (and all over the interwebz).

But it took the Obama administration 19 more days to change their story.

And if you believe them, that means it took our CIA 19 more days to fix the administration's talking points.

And our CIA has an annual budget of 40 billion dollars.

Seems to me, we're paying those people way too much money.

 

"The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html

 

Exactly, it did not take off until the other news agencies started paying attention. Before that they were covering for the Administration by ignoring the story.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, the Administration fabricated history and the Obama sycophants have to pretend that it never happened.

 

That pdf is nothing more than the scrubbed report after they had completely redacted the CIA's talking points.

 

The talking points were almost directly ripped from the terrorists (*)(*)(*)(*)ing facebook page and youtube video response.

This known AQ group... who has complete control of Benghazi, including the hospitals and banks where they keep armed patrols... There were also all the people on the ground. The CIA knew exactly what happened... they were kicking in doors and grabbing people looking for all the MANPADs.

They repeated the terrorists narrative as an explanation.
Please read the whole thing and pay attention to the date.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threa...ar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php#ixzz2TDObMfEk

 

Well said.

 

/thread

 

This thread was supid to begin with. I quoted Barbra Boxer. Talk about a far left wing nut job. Anyone with any common sense dismisses ANYTHING that she says.

 

What is he? Howard Cosell, or something?

Here is how the Times described it a week and a half later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/w...bush-struck-rescuers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Initial reports by Lybian government officials on who was responsible turned out to be wrong, although GOP Congressmen kept repeating it last week.

- - - Updated - - -

It took the FBI and the CIA nearly SEVEN MONTHS to determine who was actually responsible for the USS Cole bombing.

When they revealed that Al Quada was responsible, the new Bush administration shrugged. It never responded to that attack, ever.

 

No. He's the guy who's responsible for the rescue of our 30 CIA personnel and all their high-tech equipment.

It was all over the international press one day later, on the 13th of September.

The only place the reports didn't appear is in the US media.

Magarief made the right call on the 12th.

I see. Deflect to Bush.

Do you guys honestly not care what your President did or didn't do here?

 

Thanks for the Weekly Standard take. I haven't heard much from the WS since they fabricated reasons for us to invade Iraq.

But here is what the memo actually said, as opposed to some neocon's spin on it:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

 

You dems could always put an end to it and have Obama tell us actually wtf he did and why? Seems to me that would be a great way to shut your political opponents up. Fact is, you cant because you, Obama, Hillary and all the occuturds out there know he is lying. He's a lying POS that let four Americans die for no reason other than to avoid losing some votes......some frign votes. If anyone is guilty of trying to gain political advantage from Benghazi, its the filthy Obama administration. Obama drunk on the media shield actually thought he could get away with this and he simply is not. So you lefties out there can kick and scream all you want, but someone is going down and this time it isnt lewinksi.