Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    He did?  Prove it.

     




    What proof does anyone need anymore ?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     




    the worst lies skeeter are the ones that you are telling to yourself

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     




    When liberals say "Bush Lied, People Died" they are usually referring to the Yellow Cake reports that had been discredited when Bush made his state of the union address, or the repeated claims of WMDs, buildup of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq - none of which was supported by any credible intelligence.  But you're going to stick to your guns and say that Bush was simply incredibly incompetent - not lying at all.

    That's fine, but there are more striking parrallels to what you think happened with Benghazi anyway.  You think Obama tried to spin the consulate attack to be related to the video because it was a better narrative to win re-election.  Let's pretend you're right for a moment - is that worse than artificially manipulating the terrorist threat levels as election day approaches?  Or even worse, IMO, Bush ran in 2000 as a Dove, but was bombing Baghdad 30 days after his inauguration.  His first national security meeting revolved around ousting Saddam Hussein.  Where's the lie?  The whole presidency was a lie. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    He did?  Prove it.

     

     




    What proof does anyone need anymore ?

     



    You can't back up your claims, can you?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     

     




     

    When liberals say "Bush Lied, People Died" they are usually referring to the Yellow Cake reports that had been discredited when Bush made his state of the union address, or the repeated claims of WMDs, buildup of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq - none of which was supported by any credible intelligence.  But you're going to stick to your guns and say that Bush was simply incredibly incompetent - not lying at all.

    That's fine, but there are more striking parrallels to what you think happened with Benghazi anyway.  You think Obama tried to spin the consulate attack to be related to the video because it was a better narrative to win re-election.  Let's pretend you're right for a moment - is that worse than artificially manipulating the terrorist threat levels as election day approaches?  Or even worse, IMO, Bush ran in 2000 as a Dove, but was bombing Baghdad 30 days after his inauguration.  His first national security meeting revolved around ousting Saddam Hussein.  Where's the lie?  The whole presidency was a lie. 



    None of these things were lies, unless you are calling every intelligence agency involved a bunch of liars.

    But, again, how does any of this innoculate Obama?  You lefties are stuck in the past preening your egos on just how bad Bush was, as if that somehow justifies Benghazi.  Weak.

    No, Obama did actually lie.  He knew, and Hillary knew, that the attack was not due to a video, yet that was their story.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    bigdog where is the coverup ..... there is no new information that came out of these hearings ....

     




    Get the wax out of your ears.  TONS of new info.

     

     




    what new info .... give examples .....

     

     



    The CIA drafted talkng points that suggesting the CIA told everybody there were a lot of terrorists in Libya so it shouldn't be hung out to dry for this mess.  So the state department said "that's not fair - now you're hanging us out to dry" and somebody at the CIA agreed because ultimately all edits were made by the intelligence community.

     

    And our conservative friends, who can smell conspiracy, have now turned their noses to the State Dept and Hillary Clinton because Obama cannot run again in 2016.   And even though they will rail for hours about money spent on scientific studies they don't care about, they don't have a problem spending millions of dollars and countless hours on nine hearings about talking points.

    The coverage is where it should be - Fox News, Breitbart, the conservative bubble, and this forum.  

     



     

    The Republicans are obsessed with this incident, aren't they? If not this, I'm sure it would be something else.

    Prediction time: After what Lindsay Graham said recently that this "Appears To Be As Bad As Watergate", expect them to initiate impeachment proceedings; not that it shall work; but the modus operandi going forward these for these crackpots is to impeach every sitting Dem President.

    And yet, these numbnuts were completely silent about the the war criminal/profiteer Cheney and his duped accomplice W, (Resulting in an explosion of red ink), the related Valerie Plame & Abu Ghraib incidents, the Justice Dept scandal where subpeonas went unanswered, Katrina, 9/11, the deregulation of Wall St,  the tax cuts for the uber wealthy, and a dozen or so similar breaches on par with Benghazi (except no ambassadors were killed) during the previous admin.

    I believe the motive here is to think it shall help with constituents in 2014 & 2016 (including bringing down Hillary), not realizing that the recent failed gun control legislation (where 84-90% of the populace was in favor of, depending on what survey you look at) and women's rights are far more important to them; to wit; yesterday, I unexpectedly saw in my town an angry bipartisan rally decrying the lack of a weapons background check.

     



    Three months ago I would have said the GOP had its eyes on impeachment, but now the focus is shifting from the White House to the State Department, so I think they're already looking past Obama and mounting an anti-Hillary offensive.

     

    But chances are somebody will be held responsible for Benghazi long before the 2016 election, and that somebody will be blaming the Godless infidels of the US.  And that somebody will be claiming that the US invited this action by mocking the prophet.  Yes, that crazy terrorist somebody will bring this back to ... the video.

    This will happen - this is incredibly simple to foresee.  And when it does, it's going to kill the GOP.  How can it not?

     



    Sounds like wishful thinking; but IMO the GOP has far bigger problems than that; finding a way to strike a chord with the electorate.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     

     




     

    When liberals say "Bush Lied, People Died" they are usually referring to the Yellow Cake reports that had been discredited when Bush made his state of the union address, or the repeated claims of WMDs, buildup of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq - none of which was supported by any credible intelligence.  But you're going to stick to your guns and say that Bush was simply incredibly incompetent - not lying at all.

    That's fine, but there are more striking parrallels to what you think happened with Benghazi anyway.  You think Obama tried to spin the consulate attack to be related to the video because it was a better narrative to win re-election.  Let's pretend you're right for a moment - is that worse than artificially manipulating the terrorist threat levels as election day approaches?  Or even worse, IMO, Bush ran in 2000 as a Dove, but was bombing Baghdad 30 days after his inauguration.  His first national security meeting revolved around ousting Saddam Hussein.  Where's the lie?  The whole presidency was a lie. 

     



    None of these things were lies, unless you are calling every intelligence agency involved a bunch of liars.

     

    But, again, how does any of this innoculate Obama?  You lefties are stuck in the past preening your egos on just how bad Bush was, as if that somehow justifies Benghazi.  Weak.

    No, Obama did actually lie.  He knew, and Hillary knew, that the attack was not due to a video, yet that was their story.

     



    Noooo, I don't think so; Benghazi is a horrendous mark, no doubt; the point is, why wasn't similar reactions seen to some of the whopper failures that occurred during Bush?

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     



    Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Lieberman, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, all spoke of WMD for 20 years.  The Dems that voted for Resolution 114 and the overwhelming vote form Congress (both parties) was undeniable.  

     

    None of your rantings have anything to do with the simple fact that al qeada terrorists attacked our embassy on Sept 11th, 2012, a day that should be of the highest alert, killed our ambassador, and the Obama idiots changed the talking points (12 times), tried to blame the calculated attack on a youtube video, and lied to America.  Obama and Hillary lied to the mother of one of the dead soldiers at the freaking memorial, right to her face!  These lies and this crime was commited because an al qeada attack during the campaign wouldn`t work based on the fact that Obama was running around telling us "osama is dead and al qeada is on the run".

    Wake up and be honest.

     



    Never said this wasn't a horrendous policy failure, hence my impeachment credo, to repeat yet again; but the Republican reaction is horrendous as well, especially in light of their non-reactions to umpteen similar and worse policy failures by previous admins.

    When shall you wake up to that? As far as rantings are concerned, I didn't start this rant based excuse for a thread.

     



    I don`t think impeachment is even on the table. I would completely disregard any talk of impeachment and anyone that suggests it is smoking something.  The MSM has a love affair with Obama and impeachment is out of the question based ob the makeup of the House and Senate. 

     

    What "Republican reaction"?  You have yet to explain this.  This was/is a gross display of incompetence followed by outright lies and quite possibly criminal acts.  Please explain what the "response" should be?  

    Also, still waiting for any factual data you have about deliberate coverups surrounding some of the previous administration blunders you mention.

     

     



    I agree there needs to be more fact finding hearings on Benghazi; but for the most part this appears to be on the GOP agenda, not bipartisan. I actually consider Fast & Furious to be a failure of similar magnitude. And I felt Obama should have kept his mouth shut when that Harvard Prof had that incident with the cops. He appears to be lukewarm at best regarding Israel as well; however, while I'm Jewish, that country IMO is clearly no angel; although maybe if they were they would have ceased existing long ago.

    However, where was the outrage over the previous admin's failures? Some were whoppers. Can you imagine the GOP response if Obama did them?

     

    The only reason I mentioned impeachment was a predictive hunch based on Lindsay Graham's tone & reference to Watergate; until if and then you are right about it's prospects.

    I can't give you info on the Valerie Plame incident as it pertains to the compromises discussed above; it was based on word of mouth from European acquaintances, so if you want to conclude hearsay, I couldn't blame you. For other info, check out the documentary "Iraq for Sale" (as mentioned before). Admittedly, as in any media creation, it's subjective. Otherwise:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19704513/ns/politics/t/bush-orders-miers-defy-house-subpoena/#.UY_ip7UslFs

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

     

     

     



    I will check out Iraq for Sale.  I hear you on the outrage of previous failures.  There were many.  I`ve said plenty of times.........Bush was an awful president.

     

    But, were there coverups? Lies?  Deliberate, made up, changed-talkingpoints?



    To some degree, yes there were covverups, lies, etc. But this is like saying if somebody commits a murder, his defense lawyer says "But where's the bank robbery?"

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     

     




     

    When liberals say "Bush Lied, People Died" they are usually referring to the Yellow Cake reports that had been discredited when Bush made his state of the union address, or the repeated claims of WMDs, buildup of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq - none of which was supported by any credible intelligence.  But you're going to stick to your guns and say that Bush was simply incredibly incompetent - not lying at all.

    That's fine, but there are more striking parrallels to what you think happened with Benghazi anyway.  You think Obama tried to spin the consulate attack to be related to the video because it was a better narrative to win re-election.  Let's pretend you're right for a moment - is that worse than artificially manipulating the terrorist threat levels as election day approaches?  Or even worse, IMO, Bush ran in 2000 as a Dove, but was bombing Baghdad 30 days after his inauguration.  His first national security meeting revolved around ousting Saddam Hussein.  Where's the lie?  The whole presidency was a lie. 

     



    None of these things were lies, unless you are calling every intelligence agency involved a bunch of liars.

     

    But, again, how does any of this innoculate Obama?  You lefties are stuck in the past preening your egos on just how bad Bush was, as if that somehow justifies Benghazi.  Weak.

    No, Obama did actually lie.  He knew, and Hillary knew, that the attack was not due to a video, yet that was their story.



    No, that's a lie.  Obama ran for re-election on raising taxes for the top 1%.  If he instead had cut taxes, he would have been lying during the campaign.  Nobody would come to his defense - he said he was for one thing, but he did the opposite at the first opportunity.  So when Bush says in 2000 when debating Gore that he would never commit troops without an exit strategy, and that the US should not be involved in nation-building, and then his very first National Security meeting is about invading Iraq - he lied.

    Again, when some nut-job Jihadist is presented as the mastermind of the attack, he'll be pointing to the video.  There's no need to innoculate Obama, and I was replying to "Again, what was the lie?" - if you meant "So what Bush lied - so did Obama" then you should have written that.  But of course you have no evidence of a lie because you're trying to prove he lied about what he believed to be true, and that's not possible.

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    "This will happen - this is incredibly simple to foresee.  And when it does, it's going to kill the GOP.  How can it not?"

     

     

    Wow!   I visited my mom today but we didn`t polish off a bottle of Jack like you did.   Re-post when you sober up.

     




    This is from a Reuters interview with one of the "leaders" of Ansar al-Sharia.  When all is said and done, this is going to look accurate - and the GOP will have to own that they've been chasing their tales for months or years.  They will look as foolish and hyper-partisan as they are.  Foreign policy was once a Republican strength - never again...

     

    Abu Khattala denied sanctioning or leading the attack, but said he understood the anger which fuelled it.

    A crudely made movie that mocks the Prophet Mohammad, filmed in California and circulated on the Internet, has helped generate violent protests across the Islamic world.

    U.S. officials have said they believe militants used the protests as cover to carry out an armed assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound and a building that was supposed to be a safe house.

    "The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect," Abu Khattala said. "If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-libya-consulate-attack-idUSBRE89H19P20121018

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     



    Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Lieberman, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, all spoke of WMD for 20 years.  The Dems that voted for Resolution 114 and the overwhelming vote form Congress (both parties) was undeniable.  

     

    None of your rantings have anything to do with the simple fact that al qeada terrorists attacked our embassy on Sept 11th, 2012, a day that should be of the highest alert, killed our ambassador, and the Obama idiots changed the talking points (12 times), tried to blame the calculated attack on a youtube video, and lied to America.  Obama and Hillary lied to the mother of one of the dead soldiers at the freaking memorial, right to her face!  These lies and this crime was commited because an al qeada attack during the campaign wouldn`t work based on the fact that Obama was running around telling us "osama is dead and al qeada is on the run".

    Wake up and be honest.

     



    Never said this wasn't a horrendous policy failure, hence my impeachment credo, to repeat yet again; but the Republican reaction is horrendous as well, especially in light of their non-reactions to umpteen similar and worse policy failures by previous admins.

    When shall you wake up to that? As far as rantings are concerned, I didn't start this rant based excuse for a thread.

     



    I don`t think impeachment is even on the table. I would completely disregard any talk of impeachment and anyone that suggests it is smoking something.  The MSM has a love affair with Obama and impeachment is out of the question based ob the makeup of the House and Senate. 

     

    What "Republican reaction"?  You have yet to explain this.  This was/is a gross display of incompetence followed by outright lies and quite possibly criminal acts.  Please explain what the "response" should be?  

    Also, still waiting for any factual data you have about deliberate coverups surrounding some of the previous administration blunders you mention.

     

     



    I agree there needs to be more fact finding hearings on Benghazi; but for the most part this appears to be on the GOP agenda, not bipartisan. I actually consider Fast & Furious to be a failure of similar magnitude. And I felt Obama should have kept his mouth shut when that Harvard Prof had that incident with the cops. He appears to be lukewarm at best regarding Israel as well; however, while I'm Jewish, that country IMO is clearly no angel; although maybe if they were they would have ceased existing long ago.

    However, where was the outrage over the previous admin's failures? Some were whoppers. Can you imagine the GOP response if Obama did them?

     

    The only reason I mentioned impeachment was a predictive hunch based on Lindsay Graham's tone & reference to Watergate; until if and then you are right about it's prospects.

    I can't give you info on the Valerie Plame incident as it pertains to the compromises discussed above; it was based on word of mouth from European acquaintances, so if you want to conclude hearsay, I couldn't blame you. For other info, check out the documentary "Iraq for Sale" (as mentioned before). Admittedly, as in any media creation, it's subjective. Otherwise:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19704513/ns/politics/t/bush-orders-miers-defy-house-subpoena/#.UY_ip7UslFs

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

     

     

     



    I will check out Iraq for Sale.  I hear you on the outrage of previous failures.  There were many.  I`ve said plenty of times.........Bush was an awful president.

     

    But, were there coverups? Lies?  Deliberate, made up, changed-talkingpoints?

     



    To some degree, yes there were covverups, lies, etc. But this is like saying if somebody commits a murder, his defense lawyer says "But where's the bank robbery?"

     

     



    Give me a lie?  A coverup?  

     



    Go check the links I provided.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     

     




     

    When liberals say "Bush Lied, People Died" they are usually referring to the Yellow Cake reports that had been discredited when Bush made his state of the union address, or the repeated claims of WMDs, buildup of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq - none of which was supported by any credible intelligence.  But you're going to stick to your guns and say that Bush was simply incredibly incompetent - not lying at all.

    That's fine, but there are more striking parrallels to what you think happened with Benghazi anyway.  You think Obama tried to spin the consulate attack to be related to the video because it was a better narrative to win re-election.  Let's pretend you're right for a moment - is that worse than artificially manipulating the terrorist threat levels as election day approaches?  Or even worse, IMO, Bush ran in 2000 as a Dove, but was bombing Baghdad 30 days after his inauguration.  His first national security meeting revolved around ousting Saddam Hussein.  Where's the lie?  The whole presidency was a lie. 

     



    None of these things were lies, unless you are calling every intelligence agency involved a bunch of liars.

     

    But, again, how does any of this innoculate Obama?  You lefties are stuck in the past preening your egos on just how bad Bush was, as if that somehow justifies Benghazi.  Weak.

    No, Obama did actually lie.  He knew, and Hillary knew, that the attack was not due to a video, yet that was their story.

     



    Noooo, I don't think so; Benghazi is a horrendous mark, no doubt; the point is, why wasn't similar reactions seen to some of the whopper failures that occurred during Bush?

     




    I get the point, it is just not relevant.  It is simply Obama loyalists trying to divert attention to acts that happened ten years ago, as this somehow means OBama is not so bad.

     

    Also, it is not the incident, it is the aftermath.  Bush didn't make up a stroy and go with it, Obama did.  At this point it is a fact, Obama knowingly didn't tell the American people the truth.  Read Peggy Noonan on this is you want a clearer explanation.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     

     




     

    When liberals say "Bush Lied, People Died" they are usually referring to the Yellow Cake reports that had been discredited when Bush made his state of the union address, or the repeated claims of WMDs, buildup of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq - none of which was supported by any credible intelligence.  But you're going to stick to your guns and say that Bush was simply incredibly incompetent - not lying at all.

    That's fine, but there are more striking parrallels to what you think happened with Benghazi anyway.  You think Obama tried to spin the consulate attack to be related to the video because it was a better narrative to win re-election.  Let's pretend you're right for a moment - is that worse than artificially manipulating the terrorist threat levels as election day approaches?  Or even worse, IMO, Bush ran in 2000 as a Dove, but was bombing Baghdad 30 days after his inauguration.  His first national security meeting revolved around ousting Saddam Hussein.  Where's the lie?  The whole presidency was a lie. 

     



    None of these things were lies, unless you are calling every intelligence agency involved a bunch of liars.

     

    But, again, how does any of this innoculate Obama?  You lefties are stuck in the past preening your egos on just how bad Bush was, as if that somehow justifies Benghazi.  Weak.

    No, Obama did actually lie.  He knew, and Hillary knew, that the attack was not due to a video, yet that was their story.

     



    Noooo, I don't think so; Benghazi is a horrendous mark, no doubt; the point is, why wasn't similar reactions seen to some of the whopper failures that occurred during Bush?

     

     




     

    I get the point, it is just not relevant.  It is simply Obama loyalists trying to divert attention to acts that happened ten years ago, as this somehow means OBama is not so bad.

     

    Also, it is not the incident, it is the aftermath.  Bush didn't make up a stroy and go with it, Obama did.  At this point it is a fact, Obama knowingly didn't tell the American people the truth.  Read Peggy Noonan on this is you want a clearer explanation.




    You believe very strongly that a terrible thing happened in Benghazi and that the Obama administration spun it to minimize political damage close to an election.

    Liberals believe very strongly that Bush spun lies or at the very least half-truths and omissions of fact to build a case to go to war with Iraq.  That he caused a terrible thing to happen. The aftermath is in sticking with the lies that led us into war.  

    Neither of these beliefs can be proven absolutely, because we can never know for certain what each man believed to be true.  But setting aside the fact that the evidence for the latter is over-whelming, and the evidence for the former is slight, let's assume both beliefs are true.  The latter caused people to die - tens of thousands, including thousands of Americans.  There were months when American casualties averaged 4 per day in Iraq.  The former at best helped a man get elected.  You're not going to convince a liberal that Bush was good and Obama is evil, so when you go after Obama and exonerate Bush it looks like you're pardoning Charlie Manson and giving Lindsay Lohan the death penalty.

    If you really, whole-heartedly believe that Obama lied for political gain, doesn't it at least give you pause that suddenly the focus on these hearings is slanted toward State Department blame (e.g. Hillary Clinton)?  If you feel that Obama lied about Benghazi for political advantage, do you get any sense that these hearings are designed to do the same?

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    [w]

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    It's alarming and says alot about todays political climate.

    The Benghazi story has the admin very nervous and the loyal are throwing Bush, neo-cons, Iraq, Cheney, and any other lure they can to try and divert attention from this unfolding mess.

    When there is a scandal in washington there is a crime and a cover up! (stolen from the NY'er)

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Big Dog which B.S. Story ? The one that Obama told on 9/12/13 that the attack in Benghazi was a terror attack .. the one about the changing of the talking points where Petraeus said that the points where altered so not to tip off the enemy ..... the one about a lack of a Military response was Obama's faults ... that is an easy one to debunk , Obama allows the Military to decides the course of action in " Firefights " ... in other words he has trust in the military to do what is right in a heat of a gunfight not like you armchair generals ...

    btw what I am going to say now  is very cold and heartless ...in one of your rants yesterday you spoke of a mother of a soldier who was kia in Benghazi blaming Hillary for her son's death , I might be wrong but the 4 KIAs were not active duty soldiers ... 2 were x Seals who worked as Embassy security as private contractors (CIA) they weren't young fresh faced Marines Embassy Guards ..  they were mercenaries with deadly skills for hire .... Embassy security is a dangerous business and both of them knew they could end up in harm's way.  I grief for all four of the kia's but that is the business they chose .

    Semper Fi !

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     



    Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Lieberman, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, all spoke of WMD for 20 years.  The Dems that voted for Resolution 114 and the overwhelming vote form Congress (both parties) was undeniable.  

     

    None of your rantings have anything to do with the simple fact that al qeada terrorists attacked our embassy on Sept 11th, 2012, a day that should be of the highest alert, killed our ambassador, and the Obama idiots changed the talking points (12 times), tried to blame the calculated attack on a youtube video, and lied to America.  Obama and Hillary lied to the mother of one of the dead soldiers at the freaking memorial, right to her face!  These lies and this crime was commited because an al qeada attack during the campaign wouldn`t work based on the fact that Obama was running around telling us "osama is dead and al qeada is on the run".

    Wake up and be honest.

     



    Never said this wasn't a horrendous policy failure, hence my impeachment credo, to repeat yet again; but the Republican reaction is horrendous as well, especially in light of their non-reactions to umpteen similar and worse policy failures by previous admins.

    When shall you wake up to that? As far as rantings are concerned, I didn't start this rant based excuse for a thread.

     



    I don`t think impeachment is even on the table. I would completely disregard any talk of impeachment and anyone that suggests it is smoking something.  The MSM has a love affair with Obama and impeachment is out of the question based ob the makeup of the House and Senate. 

     

    What "Republican reaction"?  You have yet to explain this.  This was/is a gross display of incompetence followed by outright lies and quite possibly criminal acts.  Please explain what the "response" should be?  

    Also, still waiting for any factual data you have about deliberate coverups surrounding some of the previous administration blunders you mention.

     

     



    I agree there needs to be more fact finding hearings on Benghazi; but for the most part this appears to be on the GOP agenda, not bipartisan. I actually consider Fast & Furious to be a failure of similar magnitude. And I felt Obama should have kept his mouth shut when that Harvard Prof had that incident with the cops. He appears to be lukewarm at best regarding Israel as well; however, while I'm Jewish, that country IMO is clearly no angel; although maybe if they were they would have ceased existing long ago.

    However, where was the outrage over the previous admin's failures? Some were whoppers. Can you imagine the GOP response if Obama did them?

     

    The only reason I mentioned impeachment was a predictive hunch based on Lindsay Graham's tone & reference to Watergate; until if and then you are right about it's prospects.

    I can't give you info on the Valerie Plame incident as it pertains to the compromises discussed above; it was based on word of mouth from European acquaintances, so if you want to conclude hearsay, I couldn't blame you. For other info, check out the documentary "Iraq for Sale" (as mentioned before). Admittedly, as in any media creation, it's subjective. Otherwise:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19704513/ns/politics/t/bush-orders-miers-defy-house-subpoena/#.UY_ip7UslFs

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

     

     

     



    I will check out Iraq for Sale.  I hear you on the outrage of previous failures.  There were many.  I`ve said plenty of times.........Bush was an awful president.

     

    But, were there coverups? Lies?  Deliberate, made up, changed-talkingpoints?

     



    To some degree, yes there were covverups, lies, etc. But this is like saying if somebody commits a murder, his defense lawyer says "But where's the bank robbery?"

     

     



    Give me a lie?  A coverup?  

     

     



    Go check the links I provided.

     

     




     

    I read them thoroughly.  Old news.  No coverups, no lies.  No made up stories.  Incompetence, yes.  Lies,no.

    Again, this is not the act.  We know Americans died and there`s nothing worse.  Instead of explaining how and why, a complete BS story was made up to save an election.

    Listen to Feinstein on Meet the Press and Kucinich on Fox from yesterday.  It`s a "no brainer".

     

     



    I did, and I agreed with you more hearings are needed, at least for now.

     

    No lies or coverrups regarding the Justice Dep't scandal, offical reason to go to War in Iraq, press censorship of American coffins, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo & Valerie Plame? OK then.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and President Obama all tried last September to convince Americans that the attacks were spontaneous mob violence arising from protests over an anti-Islamic video on YouTube. Ambassador Susan Rice famously made this claim on Sept. 16 on five Sunday morning talk shows.

    This was false, and the White House and State Department likely knew that it was false. Elizabeth Jones, acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, wrote in a Sept. 12 email, "the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

    Gregory Hicks, a top State Department official in Libya, testified last week that his "jaw dropped" when he heard Rice blame the video: "I was embarrassed."

    It turned out that Rice was speaking from talking points changed at the request of the State Department and the White House.

    Carney in November falsely said Rice's talking points (which the CIA also gave to some congressmen who would be speaking publicly on Benghazi) "reflect the [intelligence community's] best assessments of what they thought had happened."

    Carney also said in November that State and the White House only changed one word in the talking points. This, too, was false.

    The Jones email and Hicks' testimony undermine Carney's claims. Leaked drafts of Rice's talking points show substantial edits that were clearly aimed at covering up terrorism's role in the attacks.

    Over the course of two of those edits, acting at the behest of either State or the White House, the CIA removed reference to Ansar al-Sharia and terrorism.

    Some administration official apparently told the CIA not to mention its concern about "the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya." Also deleted: "Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants."

    That same round of edits, made on Saturday morning, Sept. 15, deleted another telling point: "The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks."

    As it happened, Rice ended up making exactly this point, saying on TV "heavy weapons ... are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya."

    And this fact, which Rice apparently wasn't supposed to mention, points to what the administration didn't want coming out in the weeks before the election.

    Both the availability of weapons and the rising presence of al Qaeda revealed that Libya was not safe. They revealed that Obama's invasion of Libya was no clean matter of getting rid of Moammar Gadhafi and going home. Americans were still on the ground doing dirty work, in a terrorist-ridden land destabilized by our decapitation of the old government and aiding a civil war.

    And the ugly deaths came amid something of an end-zone dance by Obama's campaign.

    Just a week before, at the Democratic National Convention, Obama had cited deposing Gadhafi as one of his achievements. John Kerry said, to raucous applause, "without a single American casualty, Moammar Gadhafi is gone, and the people of Libya are free."

    Vanity Fair was preparing to mail its issue dominated by Michael Lewis' flattering portrait of Obama. The feature focused on Obama's attack on Libya.

    Obama was campaigning on his foreign policy success, including a clean regime change in Libya. But there are no clean regime changes, and Obama knows this. Or at least he knew this in 2002, when he said, "Even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

    In Libya the U.S. didn't have an actual occupation — Obama didn't want one. That might be one reason the diplomatic facility was so thinly guarded. But the U.S. still had a presence in a country it had helped destabilize.

    Last week's revelations were a reminder that truth is often the first casualty of war.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    So, this makes Obama not responsible for Benghazi, how?

    I am waiting for you to back up some of these amazing, partisan claims of yours.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share