Thread: Another US Embassy Under Siege

New Jersey Democrat Rep. Stephen Lynch was on FOXNews Sunday with Chris Wallace.

Here's what he had to say.

LYNCH: They (White House talking points) certainly weren't accurate. I don't know what teh process was there. But absolutely they were false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the compound so any statements that this was sort of like the other protests we saw in Cairo and other embassies, this was not that type of case.

WALLACEe: So briefly, we're running out of time congressman, how do you explain that Sunday UN Amb. Rice came on this show and four others, never mentioned the al Qaeda extremists which had been scrubbed from the talking points, but it did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been part of the talking points?

LYNCH: Well, it was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. You're absolutely right. There's no excuse for that. It was false information. And what they tried to to was harmonize what had happened in Benghazi with what had happened everywhere else across the Middle East. It was totally wrong.

WALLACE: Do you think it was scrubbed because of the fact that it didn't fit in with the president's narrative that al Qaeda was on the run?

LYNCH: Yeah, well, I think it was a victory of HOPE over reality, to be honest with you. They were hoping that this wasn't the case.

The republicans dark Obama obsession is the problem.

Is this the NYT title to the article? If so it is race-baiting and it shouldn't be tolerate. Linking our president and w/ the word "dark" is clearly a signal to generate anger and ire against republicans. It's become a typical cheap NYT ploy. Oh, how teh might have fallen. Who wud think the vaunted NYT wud stoop. They must be near insolvency.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by koman

you Marxist types

Really Koman, I thought you were above this kind of ad-hominem shit.
It's political. The Pickering report, which you are quoting, offers a scathing criticism of the events surrounding the Benghazi attack. Clinton has taken responsiblility. Now what are you after?
What's the difference between Watergate and Benghazi? The constitution. Obstruction of justice in the form of the president instructing the Attorney General to lie and destroy evidence. Where was your sanctimonious breast beating when Valerie Plame was outed to the media by Dick Cheney and presidential privilige was invoked to keep documents out of the hands of investigators? Where was your outrage when 11 consulates were attacked under Bush's watch? Where was your hand wringing when the Bush intelligence officials ignored warnings of 9/11?

Now Humbert....you are getting all emotional on us. You know my little Marxist jab was just in fun.....I hope? It hardly qualifies as an ad hominem attack surely? I don't do the AH stuff or name calling shit....except for the very odd time when it's just return fire.

I never suggested that Watergate was not serious...of course all kinds of terrible violations were involved. The events are actually not good comparisons at all but in the world of over-heated political rhetoric, everything gets thrown in. It's just the way things are done in DC.....and every other world capital for that matter.

Now, you are the second poster to ask where was my outrage about previous attacks during the Bush era. I've already answered that question if you read back a bit.....including 9/11. Briefly....the situations and climate were quite different to the circumstances in Libya at the time the Benghazi consulate was hit.

There was an intelligence breakdown in connection to the 9/11 affair....although in a way it can be understood when you consider the sheer volume of "intelligence" and the fact that 99%+ of it leads to nothing. The lack of co-ordination between agencies seems to have been the main downfall. Even in hindsight, it's difficult to see what could have been done (in any practical way) to prevent the 9/11 attack.
It was a unique and singular event.

Once again it seems that anyone who criticizes Obama is viewed as a big Bush supporter and all the Bush failings are dragged into the conversation. NONE of this has anything to do with Bush......he's gone....painting and golfing. This is Obama-mania time and that is what I'm dealing with.....not GW Bush....or Regan....or Caligula or.....

Anyhow....I tried to green you for sheer persistency and the ability to have a civilized argument, which I admire, but the goddam system won't let me. Not fair. Good posts and civil behaviour need to be greened even when there is disagreement. Oh well......

Originally Posted by Humbert

It's political.

Bull Shit.

The distance between statements by Susan Rice and Gregory Hicks is vast. It needs to be explained.

Back to you...

Originally Posted by koman

I tried to green you for sheer persistency and the ability to have a civilized argument, which I admire, but the goddam system won't let me. Not fair. Good posts and civil behaviour need to be greened even when there is disagreement. Oh well......

Cheers. I do admire your posting style and I find your arguments well reasoned even though I disagree.

If only Obama didn't have to jet off to Vegas, Baby! in the morning and Piano Legs wasn't occupied muff-diving on Houma...

The video is a Hoot!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The video is a Hoot

Sadly ignored by middle America. must have something to do with the marketing.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The video is a Hoot

Sadly ignored by middle America. must have something to do with the marketing.

Middle America = TDMA?

No, the people that determine elections.

Originally Posted by sabang

No, the people that determine elections.

Yes, well, here we are back to the Low Information Voter thing again. While there were pockets of folks on the East & Left Coast who voted for Obama thru idiological preference there were also loads of them elsewhere who believed their mortgage would be paid for, gas in their car and no increased taxes on that vaunted 'free' health care which has turned out to be an enormous train-wreck.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

the Low Information Voter

The low information voter always votes for the other party. yawwn.
After 8 years of dubya, a trained monkey could have won frankly.

Originally Posted by sabang

a trained monkey

Listen up all you heads-in-the-sand Benghazie deniers. The following are three reasons the scandal has continued:

1.We still don’t know what really happened.
The Benghazi attack marked the first time in “more than three decades” that a U.S ambassador was killed in the field. Yet after these hearings and the State Department’s own “accountability review,” we still don’t know why the consulate was so poorly protected and why the military didn’t or couldn’t respond in a timely fashion. Pleading incompetence or “the fog of war” isn’t an answer.


2.U.S. officials keep attacking free speech as the cause of the attack.

Even after it became clear that the YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims” had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton invoked it as the cause of the attack at a memorial service for the slain Americans. And President Obama told the United Nations that everyone should condemn “those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”


3.We still don’t have a foreign policy in the Middle East – or anywhere else.

How does the murder of an ambassador to a country we helped liberate reflect on the way in which we got involved in Libya: President Obama dispatched forces without consulting Congress. As U.S. involvment in Syria and elsewhere heats up, the absolute lack of a coherent – much less constitutional – foreign policy will only lead to more tragedies both in the Middle East and throughout the world."

3 Reasons Benghazi Still Matters - Reason.com

There are certainly more than the above 3 reasons although answering them truthfully would be a start.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Listen up all you heads-in-the-sand Benghazie deniers. The following are three reasons the scandal has continued:
[INDENT]1.We still don’t know what really happened.
The Benghazi attack marked the first time in “more than three decades” that a U.S ambassador was killed in the field. Yet after these hearings and the State Department’s own “accountability review,” we still don’t know why the consulate was so poorly protected and why the military didn’t or couldn’t respond in a timely fashion. Pleading incompetence or “the fog of war” isn’t an answer.

We know exactly what happened. Alex Jones tells us every night.

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Really sorry to break this news to you, Humbert - regarding the Benghazie cover-up:

When you’ve lost the BBC . . .

As a former proud supporter of the S.Viet Nam's quest for independence, we're sure you recall President Lyndon Johnson's famous statement:

"When you've lost Walter Cronkite"...

Don't you believe a queer ambassador, a lackey of the Obama administration, sodomized habitually by Arab males, an abomination unto the Lord and disgrace to his great nation deserved death?

Yesterday, we saw dear readers, how Obama & Clinton have lost the BBC. Today, it's revealed that they have lost the magazine "New Yorker" too:

Spinning Benghazi. “It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.”

Throw the bums out!

^It would appear that the BBC is back on the "scent" trail!!BBC News - Officials removed terror reference from Benghazi memo - report

^^^
That's a tad insensitive.

Are you a homophobe?

The campaign ad that was never run 'cause milqetoast Romney wanted to maintain the "Nice Guy" image:

Heh...here's a good example on how clueless these Obamabots are:

Bill Maher comments on Benghazie: "I Still Don't Know What The Scandal Is?"

Really, Bill? You have no idea?

Maher, Joy Reid Clash With Glenn Greenwald Over Benghazi: ‘Obama’s Supposed To Micromanage’ The World? | Mediaite

On his Friday night show, Bill Maher invited his panel to discuss this week’s developments about Benghazi — debating whether the story is as scandalous as Republicans are making it out to be. Maher, for one, couldn’t understand exactly what the outrage is about. But some of his guests begged to differ.
“I still don’t know what the scandal is,” Maher lamented.

The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald examined the media spectrum’s initial take on it — Fox News deeming it a major scandal and MSNBC arguing the White House didn’t err — and stated that neither extreme was accurate. It’s not a massive scandal the way the right has said, Greenwald argued, but the administration did put forth information that was untrue, whether intentionally or mistakenly. And that does merit investigation."

These people are really 'special'!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Listen up all you heads-in-the-sand Benghazie deniers. The following are three reasons the scandal has continued:

1.We still don’t know what really happened.

I know what really happened. The American military overthrew Gaddafi and your ambassador got killed. Sure would not have happened if Gaddafi was in power.

Originally Posted by Primo

The American military overthrew Gaddafi

If you feel inclined do a bit of checking around, you will find that Gaddafi was overthrown by his own people....aided by a spot of air support from NATO and a bit of assistance and sideline cheer-leading by the Americans who really did not want to get involved that much, and for once allowed their "allies" to actually do something that they could manage on their own.....

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Primo

The American military overthrew Gaddafi

If you feel inclined do a bit of checking around, you will find that Gaddafi was overthrown by his own people....aided by a spot of air support from NATO and a bit of assistance and sideline cheer-leading by the Americans who really did not want to get involved that much, and for once allowed their "allies" to actually do something that they could manage on their own.....

Hmm no,he was overthrown by a coalition of America, France and the UK, the rebels on the ground were getting their asses kicked all the way back to Benghazi prior to airstrikes by the west..Go look it up,thats the fact jack.

Lest we forget:

"Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team’s most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m. call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton’s not there. She doesn’t call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...0/benghazi-lie

Wonder what the Vegas Line is on Bath House & Piano Legs surviving this scandal? So far, the smart money seems to be Obama will survive but only after taking some severe body blows but Clinton is in real jeopardy.