Do Repubs believe Obama lied about Benghazi to win reelection

[TemplarKormac]

There has been suggestions floating around but repubs wont say it directly. Are you guys saying Romney would've won if Obama didn't lie about Benghazi?

Talk about moving the goalposts.

Who lknows if Romney would have won. We do know Obama lied about Benghazi to coverup what was going on there and Obama felt it would hurt his chances.

There were no lies from the administration about Benghazi.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo.”

-Susan Rice, ABC's This Week (9/16/2012)

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.”

-Susan Rice, ABC's This Week (9/16/2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oOxAyU8QwM]Rice: Libya attacks spontaneous - YouTube[/ame]

Sallow, get lost.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The video, that was made by a criminal, by the way, did cause riots in other areas of the middle east.

Are you denying that?

Move the goal posts much? We're not talking about "other areas of the middle east", dullard.

Yes or no.

Did the video cause protests in the Middle East?

Irrelevant. Stay on topic, Derp.

 

[bendog]

Obama described Benghazi as an act of terror the day after it happened. He didn't deceive anyone.

There was nothing to gain by intentionally scheming to lie about Benghazi.

There's deception and then there's spin. The two are not necessarily the same. There were spontaneous outbursts of violence elsewhere due to the hate video. Benghazi probably had some of that. but, there was also some intelligence that Benghazi involved a pre-planned assault by a street gang (milita) with possible tenuous connenctions to al queda.

The obama admin initally pushed the former and not the latter. The campaign narrative was "we killed Osama, and al queda's on the run."

Obama's hardly the first potus to use spin to push his narrative. Is that deception? It depends on when he knew his spin wasn't really totally accurate. But in the end, it hurts his current credibility on issues that given the facts are really out of question, e.g. there was no viable military option the politicians ordered to stand down. They did the best with what they had. Of course, they should have had more.

Of course, the gop is not above deception ... or spin. The gop has two real issues: damage Obama and a real policiy differnce with Obama's pretty hands off approach to the arab spring. The former is of course despicable, but the dems have played the same game in past instances. The latter is a real issue. Stevens was a very hands on guy who insisted on having face to face contact with militas, very possibly including his murderers. Obama's soft footprint was at least partially why Stevens didn't have a lot more guards, and why there wasn't an armed convoy with helicopter gunships in place and ready for such an attack.

 

[Lovebears65]

Obama described Benghazi as an act of terror the day after it happened. He didn't deceive anyone.

There was nothing to gain by intentionally scheming to lie about Benghazi.

Bullshit. He may have said it the first day but then he back tracked and blamed the video

 

[PredFan]

Liberals like Sallow and ClosedCaption will say anything, not matter how abjectly stupid it it, to cover for their politicians and especially for obama.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think it's extremely likely that the Obama administration created the false narrative in order to do damage control with the election so close, yes. Do you think he would have won re-election by coming out 2 months before the primary and telling citizens that his administration gave out stand down orders on protecting those Americans?
not likely.

No but I don't think that's what happened either

Of course you don't. How could someone who sucks Obama's dick believe the simple truth?

Good point to answer your question facts and evidence work better than name calling but if you had facts and evidence you wouldn't need the name calling

 

[PredFan]

Obama described Benghazi as an act of terror the day after it happened. He didn't deceive anyone.

There was nothing to gain by intentionally scheming to lie about Benghazi.

There's deception and then there's spin. The two are not necessarily the same. There were spontaneous outbursts of violence elsewhere due to the hate video. Benghazi probably had some of that. but, there was also some intelligence that Benghazi involved a pre-planned assault by a street gang (milita) with possible tenuous connenctions to al queda.

The obama admin initally pushed the former and not the latter. The campaign narrative was "we killed Osama, and al queda's on the run."

Obama's hardly the first potus to use spin to push his narrative. Is that deception? It depends on when he knew his spin wasn't really totally accurate. But in the end, it hurts his current credibility on issues that given the facts are really out of question, e.g. there was no viable military option the politicians ordered to stand down. They did the best with what they had. Of course, they should have had more.

Of course, the gop is not above deception ... or spin. The gop has two real issues: damage Obama and a real policiy differnce with Obama's pretty hands off approach to the arab spring. The former is of course despicable, but the dems have played the same game in past instances. The latter is a real issue. Stevens was a very hands on guy who insisted on having face to face contact with militas, very possibly including his murderers. Obama's soft footprint was at least partially why Stevens didn't have a lot more guards, and why there wasn't an armed convoy with helicopter gunships in place and ready for such an attack.

Obama knew it was a terror attack, and he tried to blame it on the video. When you say something, knowing that it's untrue, it's a lie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama described Benghazi as an act of terror the day after it happened. He didn't deceive anyone.

There was nothing to gain by intentionally scheming to lie about Benghazi.

Then what was Susan Rice doing? Please tell me you aren't this misinformed, Carbine?

Did you actually watch her on the morning shows?

They attributed the attack to the video. She also said it was a pretty early and that the situation was still fluid. And that new information may change the initial assessment.

That's not unusual. But you guys are playing the "exact words" game of "gotcha".

Which bodes really really badly for transparency in government.

So now you're admitting it? Are you drugged? What words are we supposed to use? Yours?

Exact words mean more than empty ones.

 

[Sallow]

Then what was Susan Rice doing? Please tell me you aren't this misinformed, Carbine?

Did you actually watch her on the morning shows?

They attributed the attack to the video. She also said it was a pretty early and that the situation was still fluid. And that new information may change the initial assessment.

That's not unusual. But you guys are playing the "exact words" game of "gotcha".

Which bodes really really badly for transparency in government.

They knew within hours that it was a terrorist attack. They knew, within hours, that the video had nothing to do with it. They knew that and still they sent Rice out to lie. Hillary lied. Obama lied at the U.N..

They all lied.

Okay.

Where are the people that committed it?

If that had so much information..they would have the guys in custody.

 

[bendog]

Obama described Benghazi as an act of terror the day after it happened. He didn't deceive anyone.

There was nothing to gain by intentionally scheming to lie about Benghazi.

There's deception and then there's spin. The two are not necessarily the same. There were spontaneous outbursts of violence elsewhere due to the hate video. Benghazi probably had some of that. but, there was also some intelligence that Benghazi involved a pre-planned assault by a street gang (milita) with possible tenuous connenctions to al queda.

The obama admin initally pushed the former and not the latter. The campaign narrative was "we killed Osama, and al queda's on the run."

Obama's hardly the first potus to use spin to push his narrative. Is that deception? It depends on when he knew his spin wasn't really totally accurate. But in the end, it hurts his current credibility on issues that given the facts are really out of question, e.g. there was no viable military option the politicians ordered to stand down. They did the best with what they had. Of course, they should have had more.

Of course, the gop is not above deception ... or spin. The gop has two real issues: damage Obama and a real policiy differnce with Obama's pretty hands off approach to the arab spring. The former is of course despicable, but the dems have played the same game in past instances. The latter is a real issue. Stevens was a very hands on guy who insisted on having face to face contact with militas, very possibly including his murderers. Obama's soft footprint was at least partially why Stevens didn't have a lot more guards, and why there wasn't an armed convoy with helicopter gunships in place and ready for such an attack.

Obama knew it was a terror attack, and he tried to blame it on the video. When you say something, knowing that it's untrue, it's a lie.

he said it was "a terror" attack. He also attribitued it to the video, which his intelligence at the time at least partially said was the case, and even now is probably partially the truth, eg there were a bunch of pissed off civilians at the counselate as well as an orgainize militia with at least a mortor.

ps, but yeah the spun Rice like a dradle.

 

[Sallow]

Then what was Susan Rice doing? Please tell me you aren't this misinformed, Carbine?

Did you actually watch her on the morning shows?

They attributed the attack to the video. She also said it was a pretty early and that the situation was still fluid. And that new information may change the initial assessment.

That's not unusual. But you guys are playing the "exact words" game of "gotcha".

Which bodes really really badly for transparency in government.

So now you're admitting it? Are you drugged? What words are we supposed to use? Yours?

Exact words mean more than empty ones.

Admitting what?

They got it wrong.

Yeah..that's what happens when you try to get information out quickly. Sometimes you screw up. Doesn't mean anyone lied.

 

[bripat9643]

There were no lies from the administration about Benghazi.

So then it was about the video? And the demonstration turned violent? And no one new anything until it was too late?





You're such a gullible dude, shallow.

The video, that was made by a criminal, by the way, did cause riots in other areas of the middle east.

Are you denying that?

How dos the fact that the producer had a record prove Obama wasn't lying? The people on the ground said it was an attack from the get-go. all communications during the event described it as an attack. at no time was any "protest" ever mentioned until Susan riced appeared as a guest on 5 news programs the following Sunday.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Did you actually watch her on the morning shows?

They attributed the attack to the video. She also said it was a pretty early and that the situation was still fluid. And that new information may change the initial assessment.

That's not unusual. But you guys are playing the "exact words" game of "gotcha".

Which bodes really really badly for transparency in government.

They knew within hours that it was a terrorist attack. They knew, within hours, that the video had nothing to do with it. They knew that and still they sent Rice out to lie. Hillary lied. Obama lied at the U.N..

They all lied.

Okay.

Where are the people that committed it?

If that had so much information..they would have the guys in custody.

The orders were to stand down, fella. if they cared who was committing the attack, they probably would have sent operators to both protect the Americans and potentially find out.

Are you just deliberately trying to be naive, or is this just the way you obfuscate away from the fact that the administration and the sec. of State Clinton, bold faced lied about what happened?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No but I don't think that's what happened either

Of course you don't. How could someone who sucks Obama's dick believe the simple truth?

Good point to answer your question facts and evidence work better than name calling but if you had facts and evidence you wouldn't need the name calling

Practice what you preach. Enjoy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jve1bV_hOJc]Obama Addresses Middle East Film Protests, Iran in U.N. Speech - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oOxAyU8QwM]Rice: Libya attacks spontaneous - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OriginalShroom]

It is clear that Obama lied.

It is just as clear that without Candy Crowley's help, he would have been caught in the essence of the lie during the debates.

Do I believe that if the lies had been known before the election that Obama would have lost? I don't know. I do know that enough people sat out the election that voted for McCain that it is possible that if the lies had been known they would have voted for Romney and Obama would have lost.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at56A5eg3vs]Bush Thinks About New Ways of Harming Our People - YouTube[/ame]

Was Bush being honest? Or did he lie?

We are not talking about President Bush.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So then it was about the video? And the demonstration turned violent? And no one new anything until it was too late?





You're such a gullible dude, shallow.

The video, that was made by a criminal, by the way, did cause riots in other areas of the middle east.

Are you denying that?

How dos the fact that the producer had a record prove Obama wasn't lying? The people on the ground said it was an attack from the get-go. all communications during the event described it as an attack. at no time was any "protest" ever mentioned until Susan riced appeared as a guest on 5 news programs the following Sunday.

He's either obfuscating, having a massive cognition failure or really is this stupid. Whichever one it is, it's pretty pathetic. The latter is my guess at this point.

 

[OriginalShroom]

There's deception and then there's spin. The two are not necessarily the same. There were spontaneous outbursts of violence elsewhere due to the hate video. Benghazi probably had some of that. but, there was also some intelligence that Benghazi involved a pre-planned assault by a street gang (milita) with possible tenuous connenctions to al queda.

The obama admin initally pushed the former and not the latter. The campaign narrative was "we killed Osama, and al queda's on the run."

Obama's hardly the first potus to use spin to push his narrative. Is that deception? It depends on when he knew his spin wasn't really totally accurate. But in the end, it hurts his current credibility on issues that given the facts are really out of question, e.g. there was no viable military option the politicians ordered to stand down. They did the best with what they had. Of course, they should have had more.

Of course, the gop is not above deception ... or spin. The gop has two real issues: damage Obama and a real policiy differnce with Obama's pretty hands off approach to the arab spring. The former is of course despicable, but the dems have played the same game in past instances. The latter is a real issue. Stevens was a very hands on guy who insisted on having face to face contact with militas, very possibly including his murderers. Obama's soft footprint was at least partially why Stevens didn't have a lot more guards, and why there wasn't an armed convoy with helicopter gunships in place and ready for such an attack.

Obama knew it was a terror attack, and he tried to blame it on the video. When you say something, knowing that it's untrue, it's a lie.

he said it was "a terror" attack. He also attribitued it to the video, which his intelligence at the time at least partially said was the case, and even now is probably partially the truth, eg there were a bunch of pissed off civilians at the counselate as well as an orgainize militia with at least a mortor.

ps, but yeah the spun Rice like a dradle.

He did not say it was a terror attack and even Crowley admitted she was wrong in claiming he did.

 

[LilOlLady]

That would mean that everyone involved in Benghazi lied. You give this little black man too much power that he does not have.

 

[bendog]

Obama knew it was a terror attack, and he tried to blame it on the video. When you say something, knowing that it's untrue, it's a lie.

he said it was "a terror" attack. He also attribitued it to the video, which his intelligence at the time at least partially said was the case, and even now is probably partially the truth, eg there were a bunch of pissed off civilians at the counselate as well as an orgainize militia with at least a mortor.

ps, but yeah the spun Rice like a dradle.

He did not say it was a terror attack and even Crowley admitted she was wrong in claiming he did.

Never let a fact influence you opinion

2012

September 12 -- President Barack Obama

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

What the Obama administration has said about the Libya attack - CNN.com

 

[The Rabbi]

I have no idea why Obama chose to decieve the American people. But I believe he did so intentionally.

What do you believe ClosedCaption?

I gave you my honest opinion. Are you going to respond in kind?

I've been honest from the jump, I know little about this whole thing. But it seems I'm on the same page as everyone else except I don't go into speculation.

From what I do know I don't believe there is anything nefarious going on but I do believe this is one of those republican moments where they are looking for anything like they did with Monica Lewinsky. Obama says brown shoes, oops he was wearing black ones so GET HIM!

American servicemen ended up dead. So it isn't about shoes.
We know there was a false narrative put out. The question is why. Was it simple incompetence? Obama is supposed to be our smartest president. So it can't be that. That leaves the obvious political angle. An election coming up that many predicted he would lose. He was reaching for anything to make sure that didnt happen and didnt want to be the first president to lose Americans in a terrorist attack since 9/11.
It is the most likely explanation. And with Occam's Razor the logical one.