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

[TemplarKormac]

 

[mudwhistle]

If failure is the standard for the next president, then Hillary has a leg up on everyone else:

Ukraine Violence

Benghazi

Iranian Nukes

A 4 Year Syrian Civil War

 

[gipper]

When a national press refuses to do its job and aligns itself completely with an administration, the American people fail to get the truth. In a sane nation (one not infected by progressive BS), all Americans would demand the truth.

Numerous compelling new questions emerged in recent days about the crumbling White House version of the Benghazi tragedy.
They include the faux meme about a "hateful video," who concocted it, why did Obama stick to that fiction so long, why weren't rapid response troops in position on 9/11 of all days, why were U.S. diplomats even in Benghazi after other consuls abandoned the dangerous city, why was Benghazi security reduced in the days leading up to the well-planned terrorist attack and why were Amb. Chris Stevens' security pleas ignored and no rescue attempted?
The upcoming Select House Committee on Benghazi will no doubt pursue these and other lines of obvious inquiry. And the answers will certainly play a large role in 2015-16 politics if, as expected, ex-Secy. of State Hillary Clinton decides to seek her party's nomination.
But for us the most pressing, curious and disturbing question today remains: Where was the Commander-in-Chief and what was he doing during an eight-hour attack that left four government employees unprotected, abandoned and dead?

 

[JoeB131]

Simple, if Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a "terrible act," a "brutal" act, "senseless violence," and called the attackers "killers," not terrorists. So, Carbine, your argument has been laid to rest. The language of his speech does not suggest he EVER called Benghazi an "act of terror."

Nice try.

Why would he need to specify the specific act that occurred the previous day?

I mean, Jesus, guy you're trying too hard.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

LOL. Still blaming it on the video. When I have cited multiple sources saying this attack was preplanned, in retaliation for the death of one of their leaders.

Hopeless.

Really, "multiple sources'.

How many of them were the guys who actually did it?

And frankly, you guys keep changing your "not the video" story. It was the death of one of their leaders. No, wait, it was a planned event because of the anniversary. No, wait, it was because they knew Obama was weak.

 

[depotoo]

If he had come out and said we don't know who is responsible, but we will get to the bottom of it, it would have been much better than trying to blame the video on Benghazi, particularly since he knew it wasn't. I think the public would have accepted that much easier, rather than the lies.

Simple, if Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a "terrible act," a "brutal" act, "senseless violence," and called the attackers "killers," not terrorists. So, Carbine, your argument has been laid to rest. The language of his speech does not suggest he EVER called Benghazi an "act of terror."

Nice try.

Why would he need to specify the specific act that occurred the previous day?

I mean, Jesus, guy you're trying too hard.

 

[mudwhistle]

[q

LOL. Still blaming it on the video. When I have cited multiple sources saying this attack was preplanned, in retaliation for the death of one of their leaders.

Hopeless.

Really, "multiple sources'.

How many of them were the guys who actually did it?

And frankly, you guys keep changing your "not the video" story. It was the death of one of their leaders. No, wait, it was a planned event because of the anniversary. No, wait, it was because they knew Obama was weak.

All of the above....

Jesus Dude, you can't see outside of your little crib to save your life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not true. Susan Rice went on the sunday shows and said the entire thing was caused by the video. obama said the same thing at the UN two weeks later, Hillary said the same thing----------they all knew it was not caused by the video -------- they lied. They did not want to admit to a terrorist attack two months before the election after obozo had claimed that he had destroyed the terrorist network. The let americans die for political reasons.

why can't you libs see what this is really about?

Entirely true. Every talk show they went on they qualified their statement with the fact that they needed to wait for the investigation to be complete. It's recorded and I know damn well the transcript prove it.

Then post it. Post Rice's statements in their entirety. She, Clinton, and Obama all said, with no reservations, that the video was the cause.

please stop lying about this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes]Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive - YouTube[/ame]

Read this carefully:

Nobody has proven that the video wasn't the cause and since even if the video was the cause it was still terrorism so it served no political purpose to say the video was the cause, or part of the cause, or a little bit of the cause, or no cause whatsoever.

The insignificance of this issue of 'spin' is even bigger than the hysteria of the Right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Read this carefully:

Nobody has proven that the video wasn't the cause and since even if the video was the cause it was still terrorism so it served no political purpose to say the video was the cause, or part of the cause, or a little bit of the cause, or no cause whatsoever.

The insignificance of this issue of 'spin' is even bigger than the hysteria of the Right.

The video was not the cause. This is because no one in Libya saw this. This has been established many times.
The only question here is why arent you outraged?

 

[mudwhistle]

Read this carefully:

Nobody has proven that the video wasn't the cause and since even if the video was the cause it was still terrorism so it served no political purpose to say the video was the cause, or part of the cause, or a little bit of the cause, or no cause whatsoever.

The insignificance of this issue of 'spin' is even bigger than the hysteria of the Right.

The video was not the cause. This is because no one in Libya saw this. This has been established many times.
The only question here is why arent you outraged?

Because winning elections is better than just about anything, including having jobs, a sound economy, or being the best.

Libs would rather lie to themselves and see us go the way of Great Britain than face the truth about these criminals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read this carefully:

Nobody has proven that the video wasn't the cause and since even if the video was the cause it was still terrorism so it served no political purpose to say the video was the cause, or part of the cause, or a little bit of the cause, or no cause whatsoever.

The insignificance of this issue of 'spin' is even bigger than the hysteria of the Right.

The video was not the cause. This is because no one in Libya saw this. This has been established many times.
The only question here is why arent you outraged?

You don't even know who carried out the attack. How can you know what motivated them?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simple, if Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a "terrible act," a "brutal" act, "senseless violence," and called the attackers "killers," not terrorists. So, Carbine, your argument has been laid to rest. The language of his speech does not suggest he EVER called Benghazi an "act of terror."

Nice try.

Why would he need to specify the specific act that occurred the previous day?

I mean, Jesus, guy you're trying too hard.

Well, it’s hard work to keep propping up lies.

 

[Paperman299]

The only question here is why arent you outraged?

No, the question is, why are you only just now outraged?

It is offensively disingenuous that those currently twisting themselves into knots over Benghazi would have us believe they're motivated by justice for dead Americans. This story exists as a chew toy for people who hate Obama, and no other reason.

 

[mudwhistle]

Read this carefully:

Nobody has proven that the video wasn't the cause and since even if the video was the cause it was still terrorism so it served no political purpose to say the video was the cause, or part of the cause, or a little bit of the cause, or no cause whatsoever.

The insignificance of this issue of 'spin' is even bigger than the hysteria of the Right.

The video was not the cause. This is because no one in Libya saw this. This has been established many times.
The only question here is why arent you outraged?

You don't even know who carried out the attack. How can you know what motivated them?

Yes we do.

On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[14] To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI). As of April 2014, no one has yet been prosecuted.


Ahmed Abu Khattala (born 1971~) is a Islamist militia commander in Libya, a commander of Ansar al-Sharia militia.
Witnesses of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi say they saw him leading the attack.[4] On 6 August 2013, U.S. officials confirmed that Abu Khattala had been charged with playing a significant role in the attack. According to NBC, the charges were filed under seal in Washington, DC in late July 2013.[5] Ahmed Abu Khattala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simple, if Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a "terrible act," a "brutal" act, "senseless violence," and called the attackers "killers," not terrorists. So, Carbine, your argument has been laid to rest. The language of his speech does not suggest he EVER called Benghazi an "act of terror."

Nice try.

Why would he need to specify the specific act that occurred the previous day?

I mean, Jesus, guy you're trying too hard.

Well, it’s hard work to keep propping up lies.

Summary: the President talks about an act of terror the day after an act of terror and yet somehow, the ODS'ers like Kormac manage to cobble together a Rube Goldberg argument that the act of terror that the President was talking about was not the act of terror that happened the day before,

because for some reason the President is supposedly imagining that the American people are going to turn their back on the Osama Slayer just because another terrorist attack killing Americans,

the kind of attacks that have been happening for a decade, has happened in the Middle East.

 

[mudwhistle]

The attack

The Benghazi attack consisted of military assaults on two separate U.S. diplomatic compounds. The first assault occurred at the main compound, approximately 300 yards long and 100 yards wide, at about 9:40 pm local time (3:40 pm EDT, Washington DC). The second assault took place at a CIA annex 1.2 miles away at about 4 am the following morning.[53]


Assault on the Compound

Map of the U.S. mission (main compound) and annex.

Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault.[54][55][56] Some had their faces covered and wore flak jackets.[57] Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), hand grenades, AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks.[58][59]

The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks.[54] The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Sharia, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi.[54]

The area outside the compound before the assault was quiet; one Libyan guard who was wounded in the attack was quoted as saying "there wasn't a single ant outside."[55]


2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Sound like a spontaneous demonstration.......?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The video was not the cause. This is because no one in Libya saw this. This has been established many times.
The only question here is why arent you outraged?

You don't even know who carried out the attack. How can you know what motivated them?

Yes we do.

On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[14] To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI). As of April 2014, no one has yet been prosecuted.


Ahmed Abu Khattala (born 1971~) is a Islamist militia commander in Libya, a commander of Ansar al-Sharia militia.
Witnesses of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi say they saw him leading the attack.[4] On 6 August 2013, U.S. officials confirmed that Abu Khattala had been charged with playing a significant role in the attack. According to NBC, the charges were filed under seal in Washington, DC in late July 2013.[5] Ahmed Abu Khattala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suspects? Charged?

And when were they proven guilty? And when did they testify the video had nothing to do with it?

 

[mudwhistle]

Why would he need to specify the specific act that occurred the previous day?

I mean, Jesus, guy you're trying too hard.

Well, it’s hard work to keep propping up lies.

Summary: the President talks about an act of terror the day after an act of terror and yet somehow, the ODS'ers like Kormac manage to cobble together a Rube Goldberg argument that the act of terror that the President was talking about was not the act of terror that happened the day before,

because for some reason the President is supposedly imagining that the American people are going to turn their back on the Osama Slayer just because another terrorist attack killing Americans,

the kind of attacks that have been happening for a decade, has happened in the Middle East.

But he tried to convince everyone these weren't the terrorists he claimed he had decimated. In fact, they were. Matter of fact, he helped arm and train them.

 

[HenryBHough]

People died.
Obama lied.
But it was not the lies that killed them.
It was the chronic weakness.

 

[mudwhistle]

You don't even know who carried out the attack. How can you know what motivated them?

Yes we do.

On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[14] To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI). As of April 2014, no one has yet been prosecuted.


Ahmed Abu Khattala (born 1971~) is a Islamist militia commander in Libya, a commander of Ansar al-Sharia militia.
Witnesses of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi say they saw him leading the attack.[4] On 6 August 2013, U.S. officials confirmed that Abu Khattala had been charged with playing a significant role in the attack. According to NBC, the charges were filed under seal in Washington, DC in late July 2013.[5] Ahmed Abu Khattala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suspects? Charged?

And when were they proven guilty? And when did they testify the video had nothing to do with it?

Sorry, bud, but Obama isn't interested in catching anyone. It's been like 2 years Dude. Who cares now.