Obama lies about Benghazi

Post Reply New Topic

The GOP has been blatantly ignoring the fact that the party line of cutting funding also applied to embassies. Even when those embassies were in the middle of ****storm central. This is politics at its most typical: The GOP consistently resisted more funding for American foreign assets. After their actions had consequences, they tried to turn it around in an effort to attack Obama and Hillary.

Is Obama a liar? Yes, undoubtedly. Is he responsible for a number of horrendous things. Yep. And Hillary isn't much better. But this Benghazi thing has been a shameless attempt to use the deaths of American foreign assets for political gain. The fact of the matter is that American embassies have been attacked numerous times throughout history. And as long as America maintains assets in nations that really, really don't like them, that will continue to be the case.

They had recently requested temporary support before this happened, that fell to Hillary and the WH, what does that have to do with the GOP? I am not a friend of the GOP but to even talk about it is so far out side the scope of reality it boggles my mind. It was the state departments duty under Clinton to send the assets they requested, the SD refused. That has WHAT exactly to do with the GOP? When the attack began it fell to Obama to send in help. That has WHAT to do with the GOP exactly please? You screw headed party line morons are all impossible to actually talk to. What happens on THEIR WATCH is THEIR FAULT.

Last edited by DevKit on 01 May 2014, 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If assets are stretched too thin and nobody wants to increase them, what sort of "help" could they offer them? Increased American/military presence could have sparked increased tensions and accusations of imperialism in an extremely volatile country. The ambassador was generally well-liked among the non-insane-militant people in the area. Turning the embassy into a giant fortress of doom might have compromised that. And speaking of compromising things, there was a ton of CIA activity in the immediate area around the embassy. I wouldn't be slightly surprised if officials from the CIA specifically requested that as little attention as possible be drawn to American activities in Libya.

An interesting theory but there are a few problems. First of all, the embassy was already a fortress to begin with. Guard walls and securty good enough for any individual threat, but not a mob. The military is very skilled at hiding their presence. Second, you are just arguing that it was worth it to risk and sacrifice our well liked ambassador in the name of politics. Not a very compelling argument.

If the CIA thought that it was so bad on the ground that sending in support would have raised tensions and started an all out conflict then shouldn't they have just evacuated the embassy in the first place? If as you suggest they knew they couldn't protect our U.S. diplomats it just begs the question even more why they didnt do something to prevent this in the first place. Your not making a very good case here.

Please stop re-quoting quotes of quoted quotes and learn to use the "Post Reply" button instead.

A U.S. President lying?????? I am shocked - shocked!! !! !!

Fortifications are designed to withstand sustained assault from more than one person. As for the military being able to hide their presence, not really. They'd have to specifically use soldiers that matched the ethnic background of the area, spoke the language fluently, and carried only weapons that were likely to be found in the possession of a Benghazi resident. They couldn't be seen on the grounds of the embassy or speaking with American assets. I don't know if you're insinuating that Obama let the ambassador be killed to...I don't know, somehow bolster his foreign policy credentials or something? I don't see how he sacrificed Stevens if his death was a direct result of an attack by an Islamic militant group. That sounds more like a murder to me.

Personally, I think we shouldn't have maintained an embassy within Libya until they (or the CIA lol) established a relatively stable government. But, and this is just conjecture because I'm not a CIA operative, if I had to guess I would say that they wanted the embassy around to foster a greater interest in cooperating with the West. That way, when they install a favorable dictator, there's less likely to be another (probably theocratic) revolution. As for why the CIA didn't use their assets during the attack, they probably didn't want to blow their cover. Even during the height of the hearings and breastbeating, there were several times when Republicans said, "Whoops, better not talk about that part for national security reasons!"

Which was refused by one of those who died in the incident



It isn't doing anything to the left. At all. All it does is make those on the right shout even louder. Fox News is the only one who bothers to give this any coverage, because the Republicans are rapidly running out of taking points that don't make them look bad. Stick to what worked in the past, that's the ticket. With so many ridiculous things going on RIGHT NOW, why is there so much time and energy being diverted into this crap? Why aren't the Republicans trying to do something for our veterans, our economy, our persistent unemployment, our declining education system, our rising outbreaks of preventable disease, or our widespread problems with political corruption instead? This has been going on for years, and the only thing they will get out of it is the same worthless political grandstanding they got from voting to repeal Obamacare a billion times.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been investigated (which it was many times over by dozens of committees and task forces). I'm saying that it has now become a complete waste of time and money. If they couldn't make anything of it up to this point, perhaps it's time to realize that nothing further will be accomplished. So I will say again, it's time to move the F*ck on to more pressing matters.

It's a pointless scandal since they're not going to talk about the real story, yes the Obama administration lied about the talking points but the question is why? It's not because they didn't want the narrative of terrorism, they were covering up a real crime. What exactly was the CIA doing at that annex? Where exactly do you think these Al Qaeda-aligned terrorists in Libya and Syria got their weapons? The sad thing is that there a lot in our government and positions of power in this country that have no problem arming and utilizing terrorists when it fits our agenda, in the end it doesn't even matter if they turn against us since that just means job security for them. The biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world is the US.

It's Libya. You probably can't go out and get your newspaper without tripping over an AK-47.

The stooge Jay Carney is putting out even more ridiculously stupid talking points saying that the documents wernt related to Benghazi. The fact that they wernt revealed in the investigation is arguably obstruction of justice. It took two years of litigation to get the docs in the lawsuit. For something that isnt critically damaging the Obama administration they SURE ARE doing a lot of lying, spinning, and legal fighting arnt they? There is a reason they ran extremely hard on a known lie in the 2 months before the election. Face the facts like an adult, its the WH thats spending all of their own energy on this and their little coverup when they should be dealing with other things. THEY created this mess by lying about it and now THEY have to deal with. They made their bed they can lie in it. Its called damage control. You are delusional if you dont think its a major problem for them. They dems and Obama CLEARLY see it a major problem.

The republicans arnt doing anything about any of those other issues because both parties are bought and paid for and they are both a broken outdated relic.



It was the same situation in Afghanistan when Brzezinski started the proxy war with Russia and made it look like the big bad Russians were the ones who started it. It was the same thing in Syria, Libya and now again in the Ukraine. Oh and they are also doing it on our own boarder with Mexico.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world ... d=all&_r=0

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats. "


Its called reading. The Google makes it easy. Try it some time, it sure beats the hell out of being stupid.

Definitely agree with that. The Dems are playing reactionary on this issue because it is easier than trying to bring up real issues. Same reason the Repubs won't let it go.

Distraction is more effective than solution.

Don't see how that conflicts with what I wrote in any way.

U. Mad.

We have a broken and criminal government, even if the Obama did an obvious illegal and impeachable offense his party and supporters will circle the wagons and protect their politics. The GOP won't really hold them accountable either since they don't want to be held accountable for their own crimes, the two criminal parties are just the two sides of the same coin and they both have blood on their hands. Does anybody care that the Obama administration is supporting Al Qaeda-aligned terrorists when it fits their agenda? Does anybody care about torture? Does anybody care about the innocents that have been killed by these drones? Does anybody care that all this will all be used to justify even more evil? It propagates itself. All these whores in Washington care about is scoring political points in their made up dog and pony show and their own personal enrichment, our democracy is broken and doesn't represent the people.


We really need to stop talking about the cover up in Benghazi, we need to focus on the REAL issues! Like abortion...! or amnesty, what will Big Business do without a constant influx or third world immigrants? They may actually have to raise wages and provide benefits, the horror the horror! Talk about the issues!

It conflicts because it shows how stupid what you said was. You implied that the U.S. was not arming the criminals and I showed that they were. U. Dumb?

All I said was that it isn't very difficult at all for a civilian in Libya to obtain a weapon of some kind. Don't see how that's rage-worthy.