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

[paperview]

Er...

"U.S. envoy Chris Stevens refused offers of more security before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in which he was killed, McClatchy Newspapers reported."

Official: Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security | Military.com

 

[kwc57]

come on, boo...at this point it's patently obvious that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at benghazi and it's also patently obvious that the obama administration lied about the attack being caused by the youtube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "there is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

View attachment $blinders.bmp

 

[BlindBoo]

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!!!!

So those Military Commanders are participating in this so called cover-up too?

 

[BlindBoo]

come on, boo...at this point it's patently obvious that there was indeed a cover-up of what happened at benghazi and it's also patently obvious that the obama administration lied about the attack being caused by the youtube video. I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face.

those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "there is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

View attachment 29305

Say, now there's a fact the echo-chambermaids can get behind.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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!!!!

So those Military Commanders are participating in this so called cover-up too?

Right, plus 'us civilians' obviously know quite a bit more how to deal with this sort of thing than our military leaders.

 

[kwc57]

those echo-fact are only obvious to subscribers of the echo-chamber.

Where is the quote where they say unequivocally that the attack was caused solely by a video?

In the real world when a statesman qualities their statement with "there is an investigation ongoing and we'll wait until that investigation is complete....." anything that follows should be considered pure speculation. What did the investigation reveal?

Cover-up? Nixon was caught in a cover-up. You should research that if you want to know what a real cover up is about.

View attachment 29305

Say, now there's a fact the echo-chambermaids can get behind.

Sorry.....they're for the deniers like you. It allows you to feel comfortable with the lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

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!!!!

So those Military Commanders are participating in this so called cover-up too?

Right, plus 'us civilians' obviously know quite a bit more how to deal with this sort of thing than our military leaders.

OK, Cabbie...why don't you take a stab at explaining why the Ready Response Team sitting at an airbase in Italy (a group who's only purpose is to respond to EXACTLY this type of situation) doesn't get deployed to Libya even though our Consulate is burning, our Ambassador is missing and our personnel are under continued attack and begging for aid? I'm dying to hear ANYONE explain how we couldn't secure our own Consulate until WEEKS after the attack!

 

[Jarhead]

Er...

"U.S. envoy Chris Stevens refused offers of more security before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in which he was killed, McClatchy Newspapers reported."

Official: Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security | Military.com

PPV...you were duped with this one.

Yes, he denied MILITARY security as he did not feel it was in the best interest of relations with Libyans to have military personnel surrounding him.

However, he repeatedly requested more security.

Wonder why that talking point is still going around........

 

[Jarhead]

So those Military Commanders are participating in this so called cover-up too?

Right, plus 'us civilians' obviously know quite a bit more how to deal with this sort of thing than our military leaders.

OK, Cabbie...why don't you take a stab at explaining why the Ready Response Team sitting at an airbase in Italy (a group who's only purpose is to respond to EXACTLY this type of situation) doesn't get deployed to Libya even though our Consulate is burning, our Ambassador is missing and our personnel are under continued attack and begging for aid? I'm dying to hear ANYONE explain how we couldn't secure our own Consulate until WEEKS after the attack!

well...the talking point answer is "there was not enough time to get there."...

But that begs the question...

"how did they know how long the attack would last"....????

 

[Oldstyle]

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

The only reason this has "legs" is that the Obama Administration has NEVER been honest about what happened in Benghazi that night and has never admitted to misleading the American people. It isn't just that this was a screw-up. Screw-ups and government go together like ham & eggs. It's the lies to the American people FOLLOWING the screw-ups that are damning to this Administration.

 

[Oldstyle]

Right, plus 'us civilians' obviously know quite a bit more how to deal with this sort of thing than our military leaders.

OK, Cabbie...why don't you take a stab at explaining why the Ready Response Team sitting at an airbase in Italy (a group who's only purpose is to respond to EXACTLY this type of situation) doesn't get deployed to Libya even though our Consulate is burning, our Ambassador is missing and our personnel are under continued attack and begging for aid? I'm dying to hear ANYONE explain how we couldn't secure our own Consulate until WEEKS after the attack!

well...the talking point answer is "there was not enough time to get there."...

But that begs the question...

"how did they know how long the attack would last"....????

Tell me this...if you REALLY wanted to catch the people responsible for the attack wouldn't you want to recover the videotape from the Consulate so you could see the faces of the people involved? Would someone kindly explain to me how those tapes were not recovered until WEEKS afterwards? This would be akin to the Police not deeming it important to look at the video of a bank hold up and murder until weeks later. Does any of that make the slightest sense to anyone here? Even if the attacks had ended...WHICH THEY HADN'T!!!...it was vitally important that we secure that site and begin an investigation. But we didn't DO that because this Administration was worried about appearances rather than catching terrorists.

 

[bendog]

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

The only reason this has "legs" is that the Obama Administration has NEVER been honest about what happened in Benghazi that night and has never admitted to misleading the American people. It isn't just that this was a screw-up. Screw-ups and government go together like ham & eggs. It's the lies to the American people FOLLOWING the screw-ups that are damning to this Administration.

Oh crist. Reagan was never honest about Beirut nor was Jfk over the bay of pigs, so that explanation is just bs. And that's not mentioning JR and the Iraq misadventure.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

The only reason this has "legs" is that the Obama Administration has NEVER been honest about what happened in Benghazi that night and has never admitted to misleading the American people. It isn't just that this was a screw-up. Screw-ups and government go together like ham & eggs. It's the lies to the American people FOLLOWING the screw-ups that are damning to this Administration.

Oh crist. Reagan was never honest about Beirut nor was Jfk over the bay of pigs, so that explanation is just bs. And that's not mentioning JR and the Iraq misadventure.

So you're basically admitting that the Obama Administration lied to the American people but don't see a problem there because other Presidents were less than honest in the past? You might want to touch base with some of the other liberals on the board here because they're STILL denying a cover-up ever happened.

 

[bendog]

Yes. I'm saying there's no difference between this admin and other administrations. There's no coverup in that they've admitted their was a terrorist attack and they've altered policy. Ike did it. JFK did it. (LBJ didn't much to our detriment) I suppose Nixon did, but I don't really recall how or when. Ford did it with the mayaquez. Reagan did it with Beirut. The full story on Poppy and Noreiga and funneling contra drugs will never be known, nor do I care. Slick, amusingly, may be the most transparent in accepting blame for Rwanda, and I think he's said in retrospect he should have had Osama killed (though its a RW nut job conspiracy to think ANYONE wanted to take custody of Osama because THAT would have led to allowing him some rights)

W's clusterfk was .... over the top, and no he never owned up to it.

PRESIDENTS LIE. Thus, I fail to see your .... outrage. They're required to take steps to fix their screw-ups, but climbing up on a cross to allow partisans to put the nails in doesn't go with the job.

the reality is this is still an issue because it inflames those who vote in goper primaries. in 14 and 16.

 

[BlindBoo]

View attachment 29305

Say, now there's a fact the echo-chambermaids can get behind.

Sorry.....they're for the deniers like you. It allows you to feel comfortable with the lies.

Back it up then. I'm still waiting for some actual quotes rather than some regurgitated paraphrased nonsense that bounced of the walls and into the ears of the echo-chambermaids.

 

[Jarhead]

Say, now there's a fact the echo-chambermaids can get behind.

Sorry.....they're for the deniers like you. It allows you to feel comfortable with the lies.

Back it up then. I'm still waiting for some actual quotes rather than some regurgitated paraphrased nonsense that bounced of the walls and into the ears of the echo-chambermaids.

I will ask again and you will divert again.....

The report confirmed that the military did not have enough time to go in and help those under attack.

But the report had the advantage of knowing when the attack ended.

How did the administration know, at the time of the attack, how long it would last.

Why did the president NOT give the order to get the ball rolling with military support?

 

[Oldstyle]

Say, now there's a fact the echo-chambermaids can get behind.

Sorry.....they're for the deniers like you. It allows you to feel comfortable with the lies.

Back it up then. I'm still waiting for some actual quotes rather than some regurgitated paraphrased nonsense that bounced of the walls and into the ears of the echo-chambermaids.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation for why help wasn't sent. Instead you're giving us "echo-chambermaids" nonsense. You might as well run up a white flag that announces in bold letters "I DON'T HAVE A CREDIBLE RESPONSE TO THAT!!!!"

 

[BlindBoo]

Sorry.....they're for the deniers like you. It allows you to feel comfortable with the lies.

Back it up then. I'm still waiting for some actual quotes rather than some regurgitated paraphrased nonsense that bounced of the walls and into the ears of the echo-chambermaids.

I will ask again and you will divert again.....

The report confirmed that the military did not have enough time to go in and help those under attack.

But the report had the advantage of knowing when the attack ended.

How did the administration know, at the time of the attack, how long it would last.

Why did the president NOT give the order to get the ball rolling with military support?

Obama ordered that the Defense Department respond to the attack with "all available DOD assets" and try to protect U.S. personnel, Panetta said.

Panetta, Dempsey defend U.S. response to Benghazi attack - CNN.com

Are you asking why the President didn't micro-manage the tactical decisions? Seems to me he left those decision up to the commanders he gave the order to. And rightly so, they are suppose to be non-partisan.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sorry.....they're for the deniers like you. It allows you to feel comfortable with the lies.

Back it up then. I'm still waiting for some actual quotes rather than some regurgitated paraphrased nonsense that bounced of the walls and into the ears of the echo-chambermaids.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation for why help wasn't sent. Instead you're giving us "echo-chambermaids" nonsense. You might as well run up a white flag that announces in bold letters "I DON'T HAVE A CREDIBLE RESPONSE TO THAT!!!!"

Help was sent to the Consulate from the Annex within 25 minutes of the attack being reported.

 

[hortysir]

We already know the reason. The Republican Senate reduced the security budget $360M, which is the reason CIA operatives were killed in the attack.

lol. Simply sweep it under the rug.

Listen up sparky...at the hearings the chick under Clinton admitted that she received the requests for extra security but opted to deny them without asking Clinton.

It had nothing to do with budget. An extra 1 million a year for extra security wouldn't make a dent in the overall security budget.

Dam....fools like you are why....awww...heck.....fuck it. You are lost already.

Try to focus. The thread is about Benghazi and $360M.

If you can't see the relevance to the topic, maybe you should get some air