🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stevens didn't make his own bed. He was there doing his job and following orders from superiors.

He asked for help after being directly threatened and there were other attacks in the area. We've heard a multitude of excuses, ranging from lack of money to not knowing that Stevens expressed concerns. Other countries were getting their people out of there because it wasn't safe. Stevens was encouraged to stay for some reason. I think there was a plot and it just didn't go down like it was supposed to.

The lies were quick to come immediately following the attack. This means they likely knew exactly what happened, who did it and why and they knew it had to be covered up quickly. The only reason for not taking action prior to the attack is if they were complacent in what was going to happen. This would be in line with the General's claim that it was supposed to be a staged kidnapping so Stevens could be exchanged with the blind sheik and that the Marines getting involved caused the terrorists to believe they had been double crossed and attacked. Things weren't supposed to go that way. If certain people understood how Marines think, they would have known they help their fellow Americans under any circumstances and always have their backs. That is a foreign concept to some people so they weren't expecting Marines to intervene.

Lying about the cause immediately and for so long was an attempt to distance themselves from this. They claimed not to have any idea that there was any danger in the weeks prior to 9/11 and claimed there wasn't time to send help, meaning they thought it would be over quicker. They should have known by a certain point that things weren't progressing as planned. The decision to tell people to stand down immediately means they had an idea of what was supposed to take place and it would have been quick if not for the Marines trying to stop the terrorists. After the Marines fought back, things went to hell and those who were complacent panicked and didn't know what to do. Sending more help would have meant more terrorists being killed. Those on the ground knew what was going on, so letting them die meant the truth would die with them. That is why the stand down orders, which they've also lied about.

There were other survivors, who may have known something, and they were immediately rounded up and taken away so there would be no contact with the media. The survivors were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements and many reported that they and their families were threatened. The very people who the media would normally seek out to get the whole story were treated like they didn't exist.

No excuse is acceptable for not sending help. First, they claim there wasn't time even though they had roughly 7 hours. Over a year later, the excuse changed to Libyan officials not giving them permission. Both excuses are lies and the media has all but spun themselves into cocoon trying to keep covering the lies.

Now, not surprisingly, they refuse to discuss it at all, but it's clear that the lies began at the top and were repeated until it was proven they were lies. When lies were exposed, they clammed up and still haven't cooperated with the investigation. I think this whole thing stinks and there is a lot more to the story.

Of course, they have to claim that it's a non-issue. The obedient media lapdogs have done a fairly decent job of burying this story, but it keeps coming back. You can't bury the truth forever.
 
Last edited:
He dialed the emergency number for The Great Red ObamaPhone.

It rang - The Big Zero picked up the handset but it was as though Hillary were answering just after Bill had of bragged about his day's conquest.

He......just.....couldn't.........hear.........

Sighed....

Did His best Sergeant Schultz imitation....and drifted off to sleep.
 
He dialed the emergency number for The Great Red ObamaPhone.

It rang - The Big Zero picked up the handset but it was as though Hillary were answering just after Bill had of bragged about his day's conquest.

He......just.....couldn't.........hear.........

Sighed....

Did His best Sergeant Schultz imitation....and drifted off to sleep.

Stevens was a smart guy, who made a poor choice. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His doing. Shit happens. Let's mush on...
 
Stevens was a smart guy, who made a poor choice. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His doing. Shit happens. Let's mush on...

Yeah, Hil, what difference does it make?

Love the new shades - and the haircut but it's gonna take more than just a lift if you want to be ready to go after that nomination.

That IS you, isn't it Hilary?
 
Stevens was a smart guy, who made a poor choice. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His doing. Shit happens. Let's mush on...

Yeah, Hil, what difference does it make?

Love the new shades - and the haircut but it's gonna take more than just a lift if you want to be ready to go after that nomination.

That IS you, isn't it Hilary?
That quote, in context, answers your question. Only partisanship makes you unable to accept it.
 
Stevens was a smart guy, who made a poor choice. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His doing. Shit happens. Let's mush on...

Yeah, Hil, what difference does it make?

Love the new shades - and the haircut but it's gonna take more than just a lift if you want to be ready to go after that nomination.

That IS you, isn't it Hilary?
That quote, in context, answers your question. Only partisanship makes you unable to accept it.

Not true.

The fact that it keeps you from you sore-needed sleep is the primary motivation. Partisanship? Well that's just a bonus.
 
Not true.
It is true, but that is not something you can deal with, for that is the realm of the grownups, not the partisans.
The remedial class on use of the "quote" function has been delayed until tomorrow so you can safely return to the litter box for now.
Your paragraph was quoted in its entirety. That's all that was necessary. Your ego knows no bounds, and very little apparently.
 
It will be interesting to see, Willie. For someone to call themselves a "journalist" and then look the other way when an Administration so blatantly lies makes them nothing more than a politician's "bitch". Some of them don't seem to have a problem with that role...for others...such as Karl from ABC...it's apparent that they DO have some journalistic integrity left.

Dogstyle, the lovely thing about "Conspiracy Theorists" is that no matter how many time we prove to you it's a weather balloon, you still insist it's a flying saucer.

So what do these E-mail prove? That the CIA really thought the cause was the movie, and the White House repeated that.

Oh my God, the WHite House Agreed with the CIA! What a scandal!
 
The memo was entitled Benghazi. How can liberals claim that the note wasn't about Benghazi? A special prosecutor needs to be appointed. If Eric Holder will not appoint one and we all know he won't, the House should appoint a prosecuting attorney to question all the perps.
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see, Willie. For someone to call themselves a "journalist" and then look the other way when an Administration so blatantly lies makes them nothing more than a politician's "bitch". Some of them don't seem to have a problem with that role...for others...such as Karl from ABC...it's apparent that they DO have some journalistic integrity left.

Dogstyle, the lovely thing about "Conspiracy Theorists" is that no matter how many time we prove to you it's a weather balloon, you still insist it's a flying saucer.

So what do these E-mail prove? That the CIA really thought the cause was the movie, and the White House repeated that.

Oh my God, the WHite House Agreed with the CIA! What a scandal!

Actually the CIA Chief testified before Congress that they didn't say anything about a video, because they didn't know what caused it, and that they were surprised that Susan Rice used that talking point, because it didn't come from them.

What happened today, April 2

Former CIA acting director Michael Morell testified before the House Intelligence Committee today, denying allegations of a cover-up related to the 2012 Benghazi attacks or that anyone one in the Obama administration deliberately misled Congress on what happened in Benghazi. Morell admitted it took analysts four days after Libyan authorities told them there were no protests on video in their possession to analyze it, something that he said came up in the CIA's review of its process. Morell also told committee members it wasn't possible to say exactly what motivated the Benghazi attackers, because none of them were caught.

Morell explained that he wasn't convinced by the chief of station's account largely because the station chief's account began only when he got there, after the attacks had started, and that it was also based on press reports. Other press reports, Morell pointed out, did mention protests.

Asked about Sunday talk show interviews with Susan Rice, then the national security advisor, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Morell said they largely followed the talking points the intelligence community agreed on, but did not agree with her linking of spontaneous protests to the YouTube clip of Innocence of Muslims. That clip was blamed for protests in Libya and in other countries.

Ex-CIA Chief Testifies on Benghazi: Don?t Know the Motivation Because Attackers Haven?t Been Caught Yet - Reason 24/7 : Reason.com



Mike Morell didn't throw anyone under the bus, but it said that he didn't agree with the White House's version of events on the ground. It's a perfect example of double-speak.

Joe, you are a terrible spokesperson for the Obama Administration. If they're paying you they need to get their money back.
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see, Willie. For someone to call themselves a "journalist" and then look the other way when an Administration so blatantly lies makes them nothing more than a politician's "bitch". Some of them don't seem to have a problem with that role...for others...such as Karl from ABC...it's apparent that they DO have some journalistic integrity left.

Dogstyle, the lovely thing about "Conspiracy Theorists" is that no matter how many time we prove to you it's a weather balloon, you still insist it's a flying saucer.

So what do these E-mail prove? That the CIA really thought the cause was the movie, and the White House repeated that.

Oh my God, the WHite House Agreed with the CIA! What a scandal!

Actually the CIA Chief testified under oath before Congress that they didn't say anything about a video, because they didn't know what caused it, and that they were surprised that Susan Rice used that talking point, because it didn't come from them.

What happened today, April 2

Former CIA acting director Michael Morell testified before the House Intelligence Committee today, denying allegations of a cover-up related to the 2012 Benghazi attacks or that anyone one in the Obama administration deliberately misled Congress on what happened in Benghazi. Morell admitted it took analysts four days after Libyan authorities told them there were no protests on video in their possession to analyze it, something that he said came up in the CIA's review of its process. Morell also told committee members it wasn't possible to say exactly what motivated the Benghazi attackers, because none of them were caught.

Morell explained that he wasn't convinced by the chief of station's account largely because the station chief's account began only when he got there, after the attacks had started, and that it was also based on press reports. Other press reports, Morell pointed out, did mention protests.

Asked about Sunday talk show interviews with Susan Rice, then the national security advisor, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Morell said they largely followed the talking points the intelligence community agreed on, but did not agree with her linking of spontaneous protests to the YouTube clip of Innocence of Muslims. That clip was blamed for protests in Libya and in other countries.

Ex-CIA Chief Testifies on Benghazi: Don?t Know the Motivation Because Attackers Haven?t Been Caught Yet - Reason 24/7 : Reason.com



Mike Morell didn't throw anyone under the bus, but it said that he didn't agree with the White House's version of events on the ground. It's a perfect example of double-speak.

Joe, you are a terrible spokesperson for the Obama Administration. If they're paying you they need to get their money back.

Guy, you cherry pick one line, while ignoring that Morell shot down Issa's usual batch of conspiracy theories.

there were protests in Libya. there were protests in other countries. And one of them escalated inot a riot, or perhaps Al Qaeda took advantage of a riot to launch an attack.

But of course, the people like you, who have no problem iwht THOUSANDS of people dying over a lie about WMD's, are going to insist that not being sure of what caused this riot is the biggest scandal, ever.

It's what happens when you spend your whole life hating, i guess.
 
the loony Left is getting desperate as the truth begins to come out finally;

this Progressive administration is beneath contempt
 
leave it to the lying Left to try to insist that a memo with the words BENGHAZI at the top of the page; wasnt actually about Benghazi

the memo also referred to American deaths; the Administration says it didnt refer to Benghazi but to other areas where there were protests..

but no American deaths happened anywhere but Benghazi

libs from obama on down are losers, hypocrites and lying scumbags
 
Hardly no coverage about this on the left wing networks.

That also says everything on whether this was a complete lie.

Hardly no coverage.
 
The media is probably being threatened that if they report it they will lose access to WH sources. I wonder at what point notions of journalistic integrity kick in and these idiots realize they've been played as propaganda.
 
He dialed the emergency number for The Great Red ObamaPhone.

It rang - The Big Zero picked up the handset but it was as though Hillary were answering just after Bill had of bragged about his day's conquest.

He......just.....couldn't.........hear.........

Sighed....

Did His best Sergeant Schultz imitation....and drifted off to sleep.

Stevens was a smart guy, who made a poor choice. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His doing. Shit happens. Let's mush on...

Hind sight is always 20-20, isn't it, POS? :eusa_whistle:

The guy was there to do his job, the administration didn't do their's.
 
It will be interesting to see, Willie. For someone to call themselves a "journalist" and then look the other way when an Administration so blatantly lies makes them nothing more than a politician's "bitch". Some of them don't seem to have a problem with that role...for others...such as Karl from ABC...it's apparent that they DO have some journalistic integrity left.

Dogstyle, the lovely thing about "Conspiracy Theorists" is that no matter how many time we prove to you it's a weather balloon, you still insist it's a flying saucer.

So what do these E-mail prove? That the CIA really thought the cause was the movie, and the White House repeated that.

Oh my God, the WHite House Agreed with the CIA! What a scandal!
A lie supported by the white house is still a lie. The CIA has a history of lying to influence potus actions. Idiots like you believing that lie is what is laughable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top