"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Oldstyle]

Funny how all these idiots have no problem with the lies told by the administration.

The Obama Administration did not lie about anything concerning Benghazi. You are unable to define what you think the lie is. You tried by quoting less than half of Susan Rice's answer to Bob Schieffer's question about al
Qaeda.

Republicans like Romney have been telling lies for two years:

The Lie:
MITT ROMNEY: "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."


The truth:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (day one - September 12, 2012) "No acts of terrorwill ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


The truth:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (day two - September 13, 2012) So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terrorwill go unpunished.

Remarks by the President in Golden CO The White House


The truth:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (day three - September 14, 2012) "As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Las Vegas NV The White House


The truth:
SUSAN RICE: (day five - September 16, 2012) "I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

The truth:
JAY CARNEY speaking for the President to reporters (day nine - September 20, 2012) "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."


We were led to believe by the right wing political media machine that Obama conspired to trick the voting public into believing four Anericans did not die in an act of terror in Benghazi when Obama went public saying it was an act of terror on day one, day two and day three himself.

Then Susan Rice said we were investigating whether the attackers were al Qaeda on day five.

But Jay Carney said it best on day nine:

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack

Damn! How profound! What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. A self-evident terrorist attack.

I see Romney's lie Claudette. Where did Obama, Carney and Rice lie? You make no sense as usual with your unsubstantiated bogus claims.


Oldstyle repeats the Romney lie in his own verse but it is not true when you compare it to the actual transcripts of what was said.

OS 10305266

Nor is it a "conspiracy theory" to point out that the Obama White House decided to go with a narrative that it wasn't Al Queda that was behind the attacks that killed those four Americans but that the attacks took place because of a YouTube video.

Susan Rice was on multiple talk shows that Sunday morning, Notfooled...you picked the one example where she followed a Libyan diplomat who stated that it was a terror attack by a group with ties to Al Queda and Rice appeared to be knocked off message slightly by what the guest who preceded her said and didn't go with her canned speech. In all of the others Rice said that to the best of their knowledge, it was not a preplanned attack by terrorists but a protest that was taken over by "extremists". That was pure deception on the part of the White House because they had been told almost right from the start by multiple sources that it wasn't a protest. For Rice to go on those talk shows a week later and claim that the best information they had was that it was an attack that evolved from a protest is at best deception and at its worst a flat out lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

Clau 10378597

Of course they lied. Why do you think they sent Rice out to the talk shows talking about demonstrations and an attack at Benghzi.

There were both demonstrations and an attack at Benghazi. Talking about both in the same interview is not a lie. How in the world do you think it is?

And Rice talked about extremists in all of the shows with the exception of Candy Crowley's interview, Crowley asked Rice specifically about the many protests over the video. She did not ask about Benghazi. How did Rice lie by answering the question truthfully that was asked of her.

How clueless are you, Notfooled? There was not a demonstration at Benghazi prior to the attack! Let me repeat that. THERE WAS NOT A DEMONSTRATION AT THE BENGHAZI CONSULATE PRIOR TO THE ATTACK!!!

Please stop with that claim. It's as ridiculous as Joey's claim that our consulate was attacked by thousands.

 

[Siete]

hang in there Bengeezer ...

 

[Claudette]

Clau 10378597

Of course they lied. Why do you think they sent Rice out to the talk shows talking about demonstrations and an attack at Benghzi.

There were both demonstrations and an attack at Benghazi. Talking about both in the same interview is not a lie. How in the world do you think it is?

And Rice talked about extremists in all of the shows with the exception of Candy Crowley's interview, Crowley asked Rice specifically about the many protests over the video. She did not ask about Benghazi. How did Rice lie by answering the question truthfully that was asked of her.

There were no protesters at Benghazi.

CIA ignored station chief in Libya when creating talking points on Benghazi - Washington Times#!

 

[Oldstyle]

And your claim that Obama declared that Benghazi was a terror attack the day after MIGHT hold water (if one believes that a vague mentioning of terror in general was meant specifically about Benghazi) if Obama hadn't subsequently done the Kroft interview on 60 Minutes where he refused to call it a terror attack...or his comments on The View where he once again refused to call it a terror attack...or his speech to the United Nations where he again would not refer to it as a terror attack. If you simply look at the public comments that Obama was making following Benghazi it's rather apparent that the attempt by the White House to claim that the attack was obviously a terror attack and that Obama stated it was the day after belies Obama's statements given to 60 Minutes, The View and the United Nations.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Well .... he called it a terrorist act, but he didn't say it the way I wanted him too."

BENNNNGAWWWZIIIIIIII

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Panetta told Obama immediately that it was terrorists so you tell me why they even mentioned a demonstration that never occured and didn't immediately tell the American people it was a terrorist attack.

You don't fact-check anything much do you Claudette? Panetta admitted that he did not have 'any specific information' when he told the president it was a terror attack.

But your point is ridiculous in two ways. (1) Petraeus was the CIA Director and he put the Benghazi demonstration in the talking points.

(2) Obama called it an act of terror everyday for three days after the
Attack.

Panetta: I Knew Right Away Benghazi Was a 'Terrorist Attack'

1:12 PM, Oct 7, 2014
BY DANIEL HALPER

President Obama's former defense secretary and CIA chief, Leon Panetta, told MSNBC today that he knew the Benghazi attack was a "terrorist attack" right away:


"I didn't have any specific information, but the fact was: when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, there's something else going on," said Panetta. "And I just, from the very beginning, sensed that this was an attack -- this was a terrorist attack on our compound."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10379110

(if one believes that a vague mentioning of terror in general was meant specifically about Benghazi

It was not a vague mentioning of terror in general. It was a direct reference to the recent deaths of four Americans who were killed by an act of terror.

You suffer from tribal delusions.

Throw some cold water on your face and read what I posted again. Repeat until you snap out of whatever Limbaugh induced trance you have ended up in.

 

[Faun]

OS 10379110

(if one believes that a vague mentioning of terror in general was meant specifically about Benghazi

It was not a vague mentioning of terror in general. It was a direct reference to the recent deaths of four Americans who were killed by an act of terror.

You suffer from tribal delusions.

Throw some cold water on your face and read what I posted again. Repeat until you snap out of whatever Limbaugh induced trance you have ended up in.

These are the diehards of the diehards. Just like the Diehard Birthers. Just like to die hard Truthers. These people just won't let go of their conspiracy theories.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There were no protesters at Benghazi.

CIA ignored station chief in Libya when creating talking points on Benghazi - Washington Times#!

It may have turned out that there was no small protest in Benghazi. Perhaps not - there are as yet no firm conclusions on that. But lets agree with the IC's initial assessment that there was a protest turned out to be wrong - it doesn't matter anyway. Oldstyle takes us down the Kroft September 12, 2012 interview path where Obama agrees with Kroft's loaded question that the attackers were very heavily armed with grenades, which didnt sound like a normal demonstration.

if Obama hadn't subsequently done the Kroft interview on 60 Minutes where he refused to call it a terror attack...

The truth is Obama had just said it was an act of terror on something that was obviously a terror attack - and he says it twice again the next two days after the Kroft taping for the 60 Minutes program that Americans were killed in an act of terror in Benghazi.

The Kroft interview does not erase the record of what Obama said on live TV and to a live audience.

Here is where Obama tells of his suspicion that the attackers in Benghazi were looking to target Americans.

.
KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.

That in bold is not Obama making a case that Benghazi was a protest over a video just like it was in Cairo.

It just isn't. Anyone who thinks he was is nuts.


So Obama refused to say the attacks were the result of a protest over a video that spontaneously got out of control.

 

[JoeB131]

When have I ever said that a "criminal conspiracy" took place? Being an idiot isn't criminal, Joey! If it was you'd be behind bars for your statement that our consulate was attacked by "thousands"!

What I've said all along is that Benghazi is simply one more example of a group of people who don't have a clue what they are doing...basing policy decisions on what they would like reality to be rather than what reality IS!

Guy, you've been all over the map about why we should be upset about Benghazi, but seem to never want to apply the same standards to 9/11 or the Iraq War.

 

[JoeB131]

The election of Barack Obama is about as glaring an example of how things HAVE changed on the racial front as you could possibly come up with.

So why do you attempt to label conservatives as racists when they point out that Barack Obama sucks as a President when even a dyed in the wool liberal like yourself doesn't think he's a great President?

I think there's a difference between honest critiques of policy and someone who is so poisoned by racism that he simply spends every moment of every day coming up with reasons to Hate Obama and goes on about shit for years and years and years.

You definitely fall into the latter category.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10378883

How clueless are you, Notfooled? There was not a demonstration at Benghazi prior to the attack! Let me repeat that. THERE WAS NOT A DEMONSTRATION AT THE BENGHAZI CONSULATE PRIOR TO THE ATTACK!!!
Please stop with that claim.

What's ridiculous is your inability to follow the discussion. Here's some help. Pay attention to the use of the letter 's' at the end of the word "demonstration."


Clau 10378597

Of course they lied. Why do you think they sent Rice out to the talk shows talking about demonstrations and an attack at Benghzi.

Claudette referred to demonstrations. (Plural) on the one hand and an attack at Benghazi (singular).

So we know that Claudette knows the difference between singular and plural.

Plural on demonstrations must include all the demonstrations around the world. So I pointed out the error in Claudette's post that it is not a lie to talk about all the protests in general within the same interview when talking about the attack, My point about Crowley's interview being about protests in general should have given you a clue if you cared about accuracy in your thinking.

NF 10378712

There were both demonstrations and an attack at Benghazi. Talking about both in the same interview is not a lie. How in the world do you think it is?

Do you get how foolish you are yet?

I was not making a claim that there was a demonstration at Benghazi. Why would you request that I cease making a claim that I clearly did not make?

You used a singular "demonstration"

"THERE WAS NOT A DEMONSTRATION AT THE BENGHAZI CONSULATE"

Claudette and I both used a plural "demonstrations"! - you need to pay attention to grammar before mouthing off and making a fool of yourself again.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10379110

(if one believes that a vague mentioning of terror in general was meant specifically about Benghazi

It was not a vague mentioning of terror in general. It was a direct reference to the recent deaths of four Americans who were killed by an act of terror.

You suffer from tribal delusions.

Throw some cold water on your face and read what I posted again. Repeat until you snap out of whatever Limbaugh induced trance you have ended up in.

So if Barack Obama was labeling the attacks at Benghazi an act of terror that day in his Rose Garden speech...then kindly explain why he WOULDN'T call it an act of terror in his Steve Kroft interview on 60 Minutes...on his visit to The View and during his speech to the United Nations?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are you two dimwits, Claud and Oldstyle, still carrying on about Benghazi? Don't you two have anything better to do?

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10379110

(if one believes that a vague mentioning of terror in general was meant specifically about Benghazi

It was not a vague mentioning of terror in general. It was a direct reference to the recent deaths of four Americans who were killed by an act of terror.

You suffer from tribal delusions.

Throw some cold water on your face and read what I posted again. Repeat until you snap out of whatever Limbaugh induced trance you have ended up in.

Funny, Notfooled...Candy Crowley seems to suffer from the same thing I am! She later admitted that after going back and looking at the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech that he DIDN'T call Benghazi an act of terror and that she was mistaken when she said that he did.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO!

Look how they CRY the LIES.

There was no demonstration; which is to say 'Protest'. PERIOD! It was a well planned attack by a capable force, who had strong intelligence and excellent communication.

And it is clear that those who claim that attack was the result of a Protest-turned-Riot, WERE COMPLICIT IN THAT ATTACK... meaning that they were PART OF THE PLANNING of that attack. Not the least of which is the Peasantpimp of the Union States and Bill Clinton's old lady Shillary "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THE TRUTH MAKE?" Clinton... .

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you two dimwits, Claud and Old School, still carrying on about Benghazi? Don't you two have anything better to do?

What would you like talk about, Carla? Fast & Furious? The IRS scandal? Peter Gruber and the lies that were told to the American people to pass the Affordable Care Act? Trillion dollar a year deficits? Russia invading the Ukraine? North Korea cyber-attacking Sony pictures? Millions more Americans on food stamps? Millions more Americans forced to work part time jobs? The Iranians merrily working away on their nuke? ISIS slaughtering thousands while Barry called them the "JV"? Pick a topic, hon...it's a regular smorgasbord of incompetence with this Administration!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are you two dimwits, Claud and Old School, still carrying on about Benghazi? Don't you two have anything better to do?

What would you like talk about, Carla? Fast & Furious? The IRS scandal? Peter Gruber and the lies that were told to the American people to pass the Affordable Care Act? Trillion dollar a year deficits? Russia invading the Ukraine? North Korea cyber-attacking Sony pictures? Millions more Americans on food stamps? Millions more Americans forced to work part time jobs? The Iranians merrily working away on their nuke? ISIS slaughtering thousands while Barry called them the "JV"? Pick a topic, hon...it's a regular smorgasbord of incompetence with this Administration!

You could start a thread about the IRS scandal that went nowhere, and bitch about it for 118 pages if you want. I'll stop in from time to time to see how you are doing.

The deficit is shrinking. People are on food stamps because wages are stagnant, and the minimum wage needs to be raised....something Obama has little to do with.

Gruber told the truth. American's are stupid.

Russia-Ukraine.....and?

Iran-nukes....we'll be negotiating with Iran until next summer.

ISIS-

U.S. General: Turning Point Against ISIS Will Take At Least 3 Years

The top U.S. general in charge of forces fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has said it will take a minimum of three years to reach a turning point against the group. Speaking to reporters Thursday, Lt. Gen. James Terry refused to give a more specific timeline.
Lt. Gen. James Terry: "The first strikes were, what, 8 August? And so, this is December. What’s that? Four months. I think we’ve made significant progress in halting that offensive that I talked about, the ability for them to continue to expand, you know, in terms of terrain and geography out there. I think what we must do, especially inside of Iraq, is continue to build those capabilities. I think you’re at least talking a minimum of three years."
This week the Obama administration approved orders for hundreds of U.S. troops to deploy to Iraq as part of a mission to train and advise Iraqi troops.

Headlines for December 19 2014 Democracy Now

If Bush were in charge, he would have attacked Turkey.

 

[Oldstyle]

The election of Barack Obama is about as glaring an example of how things HAVE changed on the racial front as you could possibly come up with.

So why do you attempt to label conservatives as racists when they point out that Barack Obama sucks as a President when even a dyed in the wool liberal like yourself doesn't think he's a great President?

I think there's a difference between honest critiques of policy and someone who is so poisoned by racism that he simply spends every moment of every day coming up with reasons to Hate Obama and goes on about shit for years and years and years.

You definitely fall into the latter category.

"Poisoned by racism"? Really, Joey? Show me one thing that I've EVER posted here that was even remotely racist! My criticisms of Barack Obama have nothing to do with his pigmentation. I don't think he was ready to be President when he was elected...but what's worse...I don't think he's grown into the job over the past six years. He's been an awful leader. I would hold that view if he was purple with bright orange spots.