At last, Obama reveals the truth about Benghazi attacks in an interview

Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.

The team from the CIA Annex (which had gone to the Consulate against orders to wait) failed to locate Ambassador Stevens and were forced to withdraw because they were under attack. Are you making the argument THAT situation was so benign that no further military assets were needed in Libya? Really...Boo? :cuckoo::cuckoo:

Wrong again. They waited on the orders of their superiors in Benghazi for more manpower and fire power. 6 Americans and 14 or so Libyans drove the rioter out and rescued everyone but the Ambassador whom they feared was dead. The military commanders were given orders by the President to use every available asset to save lives. It was their decision to evacuate the survivors to the fortified US Embassy in Tripoli.

So let me get this straight...our Consulate is burning...our Ambassador is missing...the CIA operatives who went to the Consulate are under heavy fire the entire way BACK to the Annex...yet Special Forces standing by in Italy ready to fly to Libya aren't sent? No air support is deployed? Care to take a crack at explaining THAT...given Obama's claim that he ordered all DOD assets available to assist those in Libya?
 
Within an hour of the initial attack the team from the CIA Annex had pushed the rioters out of the Consulate building and evacuated the survivors to the relative safety of Annex compound.

The team from the CIA Annex (which had gone to the Consulate against orders to wait) failed to locate Ambassador Stevens and were forced to withdraw because they were under attack. Are you making the argument THAT situation was so benign that no further military assets were needed in Libya? Really...Boo? :cuckoo::cuckoo:

Wrong again. They waited on the orders of their superiors in Benghazi for more manpower and fire power. 6 Americans and 14 or so Libyans drove the rioter out and rescued everyone but the Ambassador whom they feared was dead. The military commanders were given orders by the President to use every available asset to save lives. It was their decision to evacuate the survivors to the fortified US Embassy in Tripoli.

Poor boo boo, your brainwashing by the liberal machine is complete. you are no longer able to process facts.

Indoctrination works, a biased corrupt media is an effective tool of all tyrants.
 
The sad fact is that the CIA operatives from the Annex disobeyed orders when they went to the Consulate. There very well wouldn't have BEEN a rescue if it weren't for them saying "Screw them...we're going!" Obama says he ordered all available DOD assets to help our people in Libya yet a week later the Obama White House was claiming that the Consulate was STILL not secure enough for the FBI to conduct their investigation on site.
 
The truth is...this White House and this State Department were more concerned about coming up with a cover story to lessen the political impact of what happened then they were about protecting the Americans still alive in Libya.
 
your view from the state of libtardia is typical of brain dead liberals. Facts to you are like kryptonite to superman. Facts destroy you libs every time, because your entire philosophy of life is a fraud and a lie.

Yours in an opinion of an Echo-Chambermaid, steeped in paraphrased factoids handed down from your masters based on incomplete and out of context quotes used to deceive the weak minded.

Obama, Clinton, and Rice lied to the American people and the entire world for weeks with claims that the attack was solely caused by a reaction to a video that only a handfull of people in the entire world had seen--------they LIED. They lied because they knew that the truth might hurt obama in the election. He claimed that Al Qaeda was on the run and no longer a threat------acknowledging the terrorist attack in Benghazi would have shown that to be a lie.

There were military assets within range that could have helped and maybe saved lives, they were told to wait.

Yes, NIxon covered up spying on a campaign office, clinton covered up sex in the oval office--------------how many people died in those cover ups?

Facts you know like quote and stuff. Oh wait you don't have any.

Nope Nixon was caught covering up the many illegal activities of his Plumbers. Only one of which was the second break in at the Democratic National Headquarters.

Nixon scuttled the 1968 peace talks by promising the South Vietnamese better terms when he was President. Not only did he not deliver on that promise. Tens of thousands of young Americans died on his watch as that war extended into his second term.
 
LOL...desperate to turn this discussion to something OTHER than what was an obvious cover-up by the Obama White House...aren't you, Boo?
 
That team from the Annex had to fight it's way BACK to the Annex under heavy fire...or didn't you get that part of the story?

Making stuff up again I see. They reported that they were followed and they took some small arms fire after that. As I recall there were some probing attacks sporadically throughout the rest of the night but it wasn't until the response team from Tripoli made it's way from the airport to the Annex that an attack with mortars came/. That was when the two special opps guys were killed on the roof.
 
Kindly explain why the Ready Response Team staged in Italy wasn't deployed to Libya, Boo? That's what they EXIST for...and yet they sat on the tarmac. Why?
 
you seem to ignore something....

It was revealed that the President was advised within hours by Panetta that the attack was planned and by a terrorist faction.

That being said...

To say "it is under investigation so I will not comment" is fine....

But to say it appears to be the result of a video but under investigation so we don't know for sure is outright misleading.

Take off your partisan glasses and see what happened...it is quite simple....

It was campaign time.

His mantra was "al-quaeda is on the run"

He did not want the right to capitalize on the attack and say "on the run, my ass"

So he mislead the country for political expediency.

It is not rocket science....

Actually that was a report that a terrorist group had claimed responsibly on twitter or other social media. No way to confirm that it was true. Fact is the attack on the consulate did not have the hallmarks of an extensively planned al Qaeda operation.

Mitt Romney certainly knew it was campaign time when he launched his attack on the administration during the crisis.

Everyone knew extremist had attacked us and 4 American were dead because of it.

There was no cover-up.

You're unbelievable, Boo...it's obvious that there was a cover-up. The Obama Administration lied to the American people when they sent Susan Rice out to those Sunday morning talk shows and when Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton were blaming the YouTube video.

All you echo-chambermaids believes it to be so. Just so long as you're not asked to provide any facts or quotes or anything.
 
That team from the Annex had to fight it's way BACK to the Annex under heavy fire...or didn't you get that part of the story?

Making stuff up again I see. They reported that they were followed and they took some small arms fire after that. As I recall there were some probing attacks sporadically throughout the rest of the night but it wasn't until the response team from Tripoli made it's way from the airport to the Annex that an attack with mortars came/. That was when the two special opps guys were killed on the roof.

You don't really know much about what happened that night in Benghazi...do you, Boo? They were in an armored SUV and it was riddled with bullets and barely running by the time they got back to the Annex because they continually took heavy fire throughout the trip back.

"A quick reaction security team of six agents from the building roughly a mile away, known as the "annex," arrived at the compound with 16 members of the local Libyan militia, the 17th of February Brigade.

They set up a perimeter around Building C, where Stevens and Smith were still inside, which allowed the two agents to take over the task of looking for Stevens and Smith.

Under heavy, thick black smoke the agents took turns looking for the missing diplomats, feeling their way around on their hands and knees. They finally found Smith dead, and pulled him out, but did not find Stevens.

Outnumbered by "an unbelievable amount of bad guys" in the compound the militia fighters told the security team they had to evacuate, according to the State Department official.

"We've got to leave, we can't hold the perimeter," the official said the militia told the team.

The security team then loaded up into an armored vehicle and headed slowly to the annex building. They took heavy fire as they emerged from the compound's main gate and turned back twice upon encountering crowds and small groups of armed men.

They came upon a group of armed men in an adjacent compound who motioned them to turn inside. The official said the agents "smelled a rat and stepped on it," taking heavy fire at short range, which damaged the armored vehicle. Despite two flat tires, they kept moving, and when they were stopped again, this time by traffic, the team careened over a median and drove against traffic until they reached the annex." ABC News
 
Last edited:
Obama covered it up temporaily to prevent Mitt from politicizing a terrorist attack. This inflames the RW because they think (possibly correctly) that this could have swung it, even though politicizing a terrorist attack should be a reason NOT to vote for a sociopathic SOB, and it's red mean for the 25% lunatic fringe making up the gop primary vote.

The questions are whether the right actually thinks this, or Lewinsky, is important in a general election. And, if the gop again requires its nominee to act like a whackadoodle, can they ever win a natl election.
 
So take a crack at explaining why with all THAT happening, the Ready Response Team in Italy wasn't deployed, Boo. I'm dying to hear your explanation.
 
Obama covered it up temporaily to prevent Mitt from politicizing a terrorist attack. This inflames the RW because they think (possibly correctly) that this could have swung it, even though politicizing a terrorist attack should be a reason NOT to vote for a sociopathic SOB, and it's red mean for the 25% lunatic fringe making up the gop primary vote.

The questions are whether the right actually thinks this, or Lewinsky, is important in a general election. And, if the gop again requires its nominee to act like a whackadoodle, can they ever win a natl election.

If you think that lying to the american people is not a problem, fine. Many americans do not like it when our presidents lie to us.

funny how you demonize lies by nixon and bush, but give a pass to clinton and obama.

could it be that you are nothing but a partisan tool of the dems?
 
Obama covered it up temporaily to prevent Mitt from politicizing a terrorist attack. This inflames the RW because they think (possibly correctly) that this could have swung it, even though politicizing a terrorist attack should be a reason NOT to vote for a sociopathic SOB, and it's red mean for the 25% lunatic fringe making up the gop primary vote.

The questions are whether the right actually thinks this, or Lewinsky, is important in a general election. And, if the gop again requires its nominee to act like a whackadoodle, can they ever win a natl election.

If you think that lying to the american people is not a problem, fine. Many americans do not like it when our presidents lie to us.

funny how you demonize lies by nixon and bush, but give a pass to clinton and obama.

could it be that you are nothing but a partisan tool of the dems?

Well, YOU are certainly a partisan tool, but my only criticism of W's lies was the KEPT KILLING.

I personally do not think Reagan did a deal with Iran to take the 1980 election.
 
Last edited:
Kindly explain why the Ready Response Team staged in Italy wasn't deployed to Libya, Boo? That's what they EXIST for...and yet they sat on the tarmac. Why?

Haven't the military commanders explained their decision to your satisfaction?

snopes.com: Attack on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi

Since they've never been able to get their story straight...that would be a resounding NO! The White House claims that they never denied requests for military aid from those in Benghazi...yet Leon Panetta declares that a decision was made that it was too dangerous to send in troops without knowing what was going on on the ground. So if you're making the decision not to send troops because of security issues...isn't it obvious that you are indeed denying a request for aid? Duh!!!!
 
We already know the reason. The Republican Senate reduced the security budget $360M, which is the reason CIA operatives were killed in the attack.

So why did the State Department official in charge of Libya state that was not the case when she testified under oath in front of Congress. When asked if budget cuts caused security to be withdrawn she answered "No."

Don't embarrass yourself rehashing the desperate talking points that the Obama Administration attempted to use following the deaths of our people in Benghazi...they didn't hold up to scrutiny then and they won't now.

Apparantly onpercenter doesn't know that dog won't hunt.

I myself saw that administratioin spokechick telling everyone money wasn't an issue for increasing security for Benghazi.

Of course a rabid Obamabot doesn't want to admitt that his administration dropped the Benghazi ball and four good men died because of their incompetence.

Barry jetted off to his fundraiser the next day. No one was fired. No heads rolled it was business as usual at the Hilbat/Obama State Department.
 
Personally, I think we should in a bi-partisan manner, investigate Benghazi and also go back twenty years and investigate all the other previous attacks on US embassies and consulates that led to the death of Americans. Then take all that information and put together new security blueprints to make sure attacks never again lead to lost of life.
 
I'm just curious. It was a cluserfk, beyond a doubt. Poor policy, poor security ... bad result. But why is it still an issue? Hill apologized personally to Stevens family. Supposedly the DOS has revised security. Where are the legs to this story?

Reagan and Beirut. BushI and the civilian devestation in Panama. Slick and Rwanda. I'd submit that W's clusterfk in Iraq was off the charts in clusterfk terms, and has to go back to the Gulf of Tonkin to find a worse abuse. But, it seems to me this is more like JFK and the Bay of Pigs. A screwup, but how many terrorists does the Obama admin have to kill for people to conclude he's against terrorists?

I mean, the fucking drum is worn out. LOL
 
We already know the reason. The Republican Senate reduced the security budget $360M, which is the reason CIA operatives were killed in the attack.

Bullfuckingshit! A squad of Marines would have stopped the attack dead in it's tracks. Don't say the United States of America can't afford a squad of Marines. The fact is, Ambassador Stevens TWICE requested extra security but was turned down by the state department. The sonofabitch that turned him down is the one who should be in jail.

The US could and did before the Republican Senate cut $360M from the security budget.

The Senate is Dem controlled you moron. You really need to go over to the General Discussion forum.......because you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
 

Forum List

Back
Top