Thread: Another US Embassy Under Siege

What Benghazi Shows Us: Democrats Can't Be Trusted with Life-and-Death Decisions Because They Live in Denial

Read the transcript and discuss. Put aside your subjective opinions on the author this one time!

What Benghazi Shows Us: Democrats Can't Be Trusted with Life-and-Death Decisions Because They Live in Denial - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Put aside your subjective opinions on the author this one time!

You want us to put aside our subjective opinions to read the subjective opinions of a guy who has made millions bilking gullible rubes?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Democrats Can't Be Trusted with Life-and-Death Decisions Because They Live in Denial

yep, takes real men like cheney & bushling to make decisions like that.

It's called Dawning Recognition:

After Dismissing Benghazi as ‘Fox News’s Super-Story,’ WaPo’s Ignatius Begrudgingly Admits It’s A ‘Serious Story.’

Mebe some of the 'usual suspects' aboard here might sit up and take note?

Guaranteed to keep your attention here boys!

The Five Benghazie Mysteries That Must Be Solved:

1. Who gave the stand-down order, and why? Fox and CBS have both reported that there was a stand-down order issued during the battle in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Four Americans died, while as many as 30 survived. Assistance could have come in from U.S. bases in Italy or possibly from bases in the Middle East. There was a drone, unarmed, overhead, and there have been reports that an AC-130 gunship was also overhead at some point during the prolonged battle. The question is not, now, whether there was a stand-down order issued. Fox and CBS have independently reported that there was. The question is, how far up in the U.S. chain of command was that decision made, and why was it made? Additionally, how did U.S. forces react to that order? Was anyone relieved of command for considering or attempting to disobey that order, as has been rumored for months?

2. Where was President Obama and what was he doing? As commander-in-chief, the president is ultimately responsible for any U.S. response to attacks on our missions and personnel overseas. According to official schedules and White House answers after the fact, President Obama held a regularly scheduled meeting at 5 pm Washington time with his then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, around the time that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began. No photos from that meeting have been released. The American people have been told very little about the president’s activities that night. He held the meeting, the attack began and would unfold for several hours, and the president reportedly went to bed that night in the White House. By the time he went to bed, news had already broken that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was missing. Obama went to bed not knowing his ambassador’s fate, and reportedly learned the next morning that Stevens had been killed. No photos of the president being present or in command during the attack have ever been released by the White House. This in itself is strange behavior from a White House that even released a photo of the president, by himself, holding a moment of silence for the victims of the Boston bombing. In February, Panetta testified that he had no communication with Obama after their September 11 meeting, and in fact had no communication with anyone at the White House at all during the attack, raising the question of whether anyone was in the White House Situation Room monitoring the attack. It’s implausible that the secretary of Defense and president of the United States would not communicate at all during an attack on a U.S. facility overseas, but that is Panetta’s testimony. That mystery deepens when we consider then Secretary of State Clinton’s actions during the attack.

3. Where was Secretary of State Clinton and what was she doing? How much did Clinton know about the security situation in Benghazi before the attack? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s whereabouts and activities during the attack in Benghazi are similarly mysterious. Clinton’s State Department repeatedly rejected requests for enhancing security at Benghazi, even as Ansar al-Sharia’s power in the area grew over the summer of 2012. Why did State not beef up the Benghazi mission’s security? The Benghazi attack was focused on the U.S/ consulate, which belongs to the U.S. State Department. Why Stevens was in Benghazi that night, and what the consulate may have been used for, remains unknown. One of the Wednesday whistleblowers, veteran counterterrorism officer Mark I. Thompson, is expected to testify that Secretary of State Clinton sought to cut the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making during the attack. Thompson also claims that the State Department suppressed his account after the attack. Another unnamed State official corroborates Thompson’s account. But Daniel Benjamin, head of the counterterrorism unit at the time, says Clinton never tried to cut his group out during the attack. All of this brings to mind the question, exactly what was Clinton’s role on the night of the attack? Secretary of Defense Panetta testified that he and Clinton never communicated during the attack. All three of the nation’s top national security and diplomatic officials — President Obama, Defense Secretary Panetta and Secretary of State Clinton — were in Washington that night. Panetta and Clinton were evidently engaged in responding to the attack, independently. Yet according to Panetta, they never talked to each other during the attack. Why would they not communicate during an ongoing attack on a U.S. facility overseas, if indeed they did not? Both Defense and State would surely be involved in any effective response to an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission overseas.

4. Who changed the talking points, and who made the decision to blame a movie? Stephen Hayes reported last week that the CIA’s original talking points drafted after the attack made several references to al Qaeda and to the true nature and origins of the attack. State Department whistleblower Thomas Hicks was the mission deputy in Libya. Hicks says that the administration knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.” The CIA’s original talking points never mentioned a movie or a protest at all. But beginning on September 12, through Clinton’s speech before the coffins of the slain, through U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s infamous five-shot on Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, the administration said that the attack grew from a spontaneous protest of a movie. During her talk show appearances, Rice claimed that the attack was not premeditated and that it happened due to a spontaneous protest of a barely seen “hateful” movie that had been posted on YouTube months before the attack. Why did Rice mischaracterize the attack? Was she aware of the original talking points, and how they had been altered? Were Rice or Clinton the senior officials on whose behalf State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had the talking points scrubbed of references to al Qaeda and terrorism? Why was Rice the face of the Obama administration that day, when she was the US ambassador to the UN, not Libya? Why did the president and other senior officials continue to mischaracterize the attack until the president’s address before the United Nations on September 26? During that address, President Obama said that “The world must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” in reference to the movie and the role that he and Rice and Clinton had insisted it played in Benghazi. By that point it was obvious that the movie had played no role in the attack. It’s now obvious that the CIA and the administration itself were aware, during the attack, that the movie played no role. Who changed those CIA talking points? Who decided to substitute the attack’s actual cause — al Qaeda, in a premeditated attack that we now know included operatives from as far away as Yemen — for a movie? When specifically was President Obama aware that the movie played no role in the attack? What role, if any, did he and Attorney General Eric Holder play in the arrest and incarceration of Nakoula Nakoula, the man behind the film that the Obama administration blamed for the attack? Why did President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton produce a public service announcement that ran in Pakistan, and denounced the movie that they blamed for the attack, when the administration knew from September 11 forward that the movie had played no role?

5. Where are the Benghazi survivors and why have we not heard from them? As many as 30 Americans survived the attack at Benghazi. Some of them have turned up, quietly, at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Where are the rest? Why have we not heard anything from them about the attack? Are they being silenced by threats and intimidation from higher up in the government, as several State Department officials claim is happening to them?"

Senator Lindsey Grahm made the statement yesterday this scandal will equal or surpass Watergate. Stay tuned.

Material gleaned from here

^

You are wasting your time BM. You know the TD Marxist alliance will never pay attention. Benghazi was a disgrace and a total abrogation of duty from the most senior level on down. Of course they had to cover it up....because they totally fucked up, with an election looming.

The fact that Obama, Clinton et al were still banging on about a frigging anti-Muslim video two weeks after the event says all we really need to know about the integrity of these dedicated Democratic leaders.

You can understand why such mis-information might have been kicked around at first light, but when they persist with it for weeks afterwards.....???? Seems they even tried passing the buck onto any suitable candidate they could find....Military, CIA....even the embassy staff themselves at one point. Golf anyone?

We could maybe get ENT in on this......if he can be dragged away from that NY alley and the bit of twisted metal that he's currently working on.....

Originally Posted by koman

^

You are wasting your time BM. You know the TD Marxist alliance will never pay attention. Benghazi was a disgrace and a total abrogation of duty from the most senior level on down. Of course they had to cover it up....because they totally fucked up, with an election looming.

The fact that Obama, Clinton et al were still banging on about a frigging anti-Muslim video two weeks after the event says all we really need to know about the integrity of these dedicated Democratic leaders.

You can understand why such mis-information might have been kicked around at first light, but when they persist with it for weeks afterwards.....???? Seems they even tried passing the buck onto any suitable candidate they could find....Military, CIA....even the embassy staff themselves at one point. Golf anyone?

We could maybe get ENT in on this......if he can be dragged away from that NY alley and the bit of twisted metal that he's currently working on.....

Good choice of words - TD Marxist Alliance. Heh, and these are the ones that throw around words like 'robot', 'cognitive dissonance' etc. Used to think there was hope for sabang but even he seems to be keeping his head in the sand over Benghazie-Gate.

The far right is second guessing tactics. To label the CIA, DOS and FBI response to the Benghazi attack 'an abrogation of duty' is just pure nonsense.
Marxist Alliance. That's the typical response from the far right. Label those you disagree with communists or traitors. Sickening. No wonder the public is so disgusted with their tactics.

Originally Posted by Humbert

The far right is second guessing tactics. To label the CIA, DOS and FBI response to the Benghazi attack 'an abrogation of duty' is just pure nonsense.

Give it up, Humbert. Even far-left Salon has thrown in the towel:

Salon: Benghazi 'Big Scandal,' Whistleblowers 'Credible



You can bet the farm that right now the media are looking at the results of the bombshell report Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News just dropped and are already coordinating a way to downplay, ignore, or discredit what looks to be a very serious White House scandal that almost certainly involves a cover up.

To its credit, the left-wing Salon is choosing not to downplay what this could all potentially mean for the Obama White House:

There’s been a lot of smoke in the would-be scandal over the Benghazi attacks, but no real fire yet.

But that may change when three “whistle-blowers” give what Republicans expect to be explosive testimony this week before Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee. The controversy over the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in the Libyan city has smoldered, mainly on the right, but the testimony will likely push it back into the mainstream and could be an enormous distraction for an already injured second-term Obama.

Unlike the vast majority of the new information brought forward by the conservative media since the attack, the three whistle-blowers seem credible."

Source

Originally Posted by Humbert

The far right is second guessing tactics. To label the CIA, DOS and FBI response to the Benghazi attack 'an abrogation of duty' is just pure nonsense.

The abrogation of duty was in the WH....not the CIA or FBI etc....or at least that is the way it now appears. Refusal to recognize what it was and going around making lame apologetic speeches about some 3rd rate video, instead of dealing with a planned attack and murder of four embassy staff is hardly best practices......even by Obama standards.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Humbert

The far right is second guessing tactics. To label the CIA, DOS and FBI response to the Benghazi attack 'an abrogation of duty' is just pure nonsense.

The abrogation of duty was in the WH....not the CIA or FBI etc....or at least that is the way it now appears. Refusal to recognize what it was and going around making lame apologetic speeches about some 3rd rate video, instead of dealing with a planned attack and murder of four embassy staff is hardly best practices......even by Obama standards.

Got that right. Obama high-tailed it outa there - disappeared until the morning when he jetted off to Vegas, Baby!

That fundraiser was way more important than the death of an US Ambassador and staff.

"With all due respect,the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” -- Hillary Clinton

With those words and the coverup, she's doomed any chances of a POTUS run in 2016.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

With those words and the coverup, she's doomed any chances of a POTUS run in 2016.

This is a non issue to most Americans. I bet you a years worth of your SS checks (a hand out that boonmee is glad to take for himself but wants to deny others) that she is the next president. Not that it makes any difference because all politicians are enslaved by their corporate masters.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

With those words and the coverup, she's doomed any chances of a POTUS run in 2016.

This is a non issue to most Americans. I bet you a years worth of your SS checks (a hand out that boonmee is glad to take for himself but wants to deny others) that she is the next president. Not that it makes any difference because all politicians are enslaved by their corporate masters.

You are probably right Bsnub. There does not appear to be any real competitor; which is a very tragic situation for the USA. Maybe one will appear in time, Politics is funny that way....stars suddenly appear and rise quickly...we shall see.

Hillary is aging a bit....she has a lot of miles on her and lots of baggage, but it can be argued that she knows her way around DC and she has the right connections. Being female helps in a way.....If she was non-white and maybe disabled as well as female, she would be a shoe-in.

However; being as all politicians are slaves to the corporate masters; how would you suggest the country be governed? Who could be trusted and how should they be chosen? Should the US be handed over to a select group of Trade Union bosses.....or maybe a carefully selected group of Mafia dons? I'm sure the Hollywood actors guild could put a team together..... maybe with Sean Penn as chair.

Strangely enough; any of these options might produce as good or better results than the recently elected outfit.....

Originally Posted by koman

The abrogation of duty was in the WH....not the CIA or FBI etc....or at least that is the way it now appears. Refusal to recognize what it was and going around making lame apologetic speeches about some 3rd rate video, instead of dealing with a planned attack and murder of four embassy staff is hardly best practices......even by Obama standards.

When you have some evidence of a conspiracy I will be happy to consider the hypothesis but for now it's only unsubstantiated conjecture.

^^
Lots of baggage is the understatement of the month! By the time these hearings are complete, she'll be lucky to keep her pension. Check out the timeline of administration statements. It took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism.

Pathetic. The country's in the very best of hands...

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by koman

The abrogation of duty was in the WH....not the CIA or FBI etc....or at least that is the way it now appears. Refusal to recognize what it was and going around making lame apologetic speeches about some 3rd rate video, instead of dealing with a planned attack and murder of four embassy staff is hardly best practices......even by Obama standards.

When you have some evidence of a conspiracy I will be happy to consider the hypothesis but for now it's only unsubstantiated conjecture.

I'm not talking about a "conspiracy"....I'm talking about a cover up; smoke and mirrors BS, to place a veneer over what actually happened...they are not quite the same.

It is now becoming quite apparent that deliberate lies were told by the most senior political figures in the country. There is no suggestion of a conspiracy(ENT style) ....they just lied to hide the fact that they did not do their duty or make good decisions...with an election on the line.

It's quite natural in fact....people make up bullshit to cover their ass when they have failed to perform.... whatever the reasons, there are consequences when you get found out.

In this case they managed to win the election, so it worked..... bullshit baffles brains as they say....

Originally Posted by Humbert

unsubstantiated conjecture.

Are you serious?

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa. The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized.

Perhaps steeped in those far-left fever swamps you believe that constitutes 'unsubstantiated conjecture'?

Originally Posted by koman

being as all politicians are slaves to the corporate masters; how would you suggest the country be governed?

I do not have the answer to that. My preferred choice would never be agreed to by most Americans. But the present political system is gamed and a colossal failure as it sits. It will not be a sustainable form of governance for much longer.

Originally Posted by koman

It is now becoming quite apparent that deliberate lies were told by the most senior political figures in the country.

And this is different than the last countless administrations behavior in what way?

Originally Posted by koman

I'm not talking about a "conspiracy"....I'm talking about a cover up; smoke and mirrors BS, to place a veneer over what actually happened...they are not quite the same.

Let's see. A deliberate cover-up to mislead the public that involved a coordinated effort by a number of individuals. Conspiracy would be the legal description for such an effort.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized.

One of the most damning revelations of many. For the WH to insist that all resources were utilized was so incredible that even a few far left liberal Obama-mania groupies must have shaken their heads. There were all kinds of military assets available....both US and allied that could have been sent in to assist the handful of guys who tried to defend the Consulate. None were sent.

Then there is the almost irrefutable evidence that additional security had been denied several times prior to the attack. A virtually undefended consul in a country where there are known serious threats....and they pulled out the military defences and refused to re-instate them when asked.

Then they refused to acknowledge the thing as a terrorist attack......just a bunch of boys who were pissed off about a video...and happened to be passing the consulate... equipped with RPG's, assault rifles and all the regular stuff guys carry around with them when they go out for an evening stroll......

Originally Posted by koman

One of the most damning revelations of many. For the WH to insist that all resources were utilized was so incredible that even a few far left liberal Obama-mania groupies must have shaken their heads. There were all kinds of military assets available....both US and allied that could have been sent in to assist the handful of guys who tried to defend the Consulate. None were sent.

Then there is the almost irrefutable evidence that additional security had been denied several times prior to the attack. A virtually undefended consul in a country where there are known serious threats....and they pulled out the military defences and refused to re-instate them when asked.

Just more unsubstantiated conjecture don't you know?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by koman

I'm not talking about a "conspiracy"....I'm talking about a cover up; smoke and mirrors BS, to place a veneer over what actually happened...they are not quite the same.

Let's see. A deliberate cover-up to mislead the public that involved a coordinated effort by a number of individuals. Conspiracy would be the legal description for such an effort.

Yes Humbert....that is true....but I did insert "conspiracy ENT style"....which would be more along the lines of: "The US government arranged for the attack to kill off the Ambassador because he knew too much about the cash Michele Obama was syphoning from her anti-obesity campaign"....

Again I'm simply saying that this was just ass covering for failure to perform.....rather than a real "conspiracy" like 9/11....Moon landings....JFK..... and all those other excellent conspiracies that keep our threads alive and active for years....

For your Wednesday morning talking-points discussion:

Which is worse.

1. Watergate

2. Benghazie-Gate

It's obvious to this impartial poster that Benghazie-Gate is worse as nobody died in the Watergate scandal.

Discuss.

Conventional Washington wisdom holds that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.