Why Benghazi Matters

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why Benghazi Doesn't Matter To Most Americans

Most Americans are worried about jobs and the economy which are improving. Most Americans do not watch FOX News or hang out on the world wide web looking for issues to attack the President on in order to make Romney look good.

Most Americans know no crime was committed by any Americans here. The President did not attack the US Consulate in Libya.

So why do people who watch FOX News and hang out on the world wide web look for issues to attack the President on in order to make Romney look good, even if it means breaking the compact we have on sticking together when attacked by enemies of America? I don't think these people are evil. I think they're misguided and locked in a bubble where a Noise Machine in the Echo chamber of their world has them programmed to stay paranoid, alarmed, and angry.

It's not 1984 in America -- It's A Brave New World


dD

 

[Uncensored2008]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

See, no one said Obama is guilty of a crime.

What we said is that Obama engaged is a concerted campaign of lies and disinformation, AFTER the attacks, to hide the nature of the attacks and the response (or lack therein) by the Administration.

Obama bragged that he "Killed bin Laden, and Al Qaeda is on their heels."

Well, Al Qaeda launched an offensive on 9/11 across 19 countries. Kudos to the administration that in 18 of those, the attacks went nowhere.

HOWEVER, in Libya, the attacks resulted in 4 deaths. Now even that can be written off as a tragic event, EXCEPT that the administration chose to lie about it, for political gain. For 14 days this administration directly and callously lied to America.

 

[RoadVirus]

Americans don't care that 4 people needlessly died in a terrorist attack? I seriously doubt that.

 

[Sallow]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

And I do believe many of us, without being crazy 9/11 truthers wanted answers. Demanded answers.

And we got as much as we could hope for considering the absolutely insane plot. And truly that's what it was. Who would ever believe crazy Islamists were going to go kamikaze into the WTC towers?

What was Bush to do?

Ground all air traffic?

Liberals on the other hand don't want to know the truth about Benghazi and appear to be perfectly fine with the "video spontaneous attack" lie.

We had to learn the truth that this was an organized attack from the freaking Libyan President for crying out loud.

Short list?

-Institute the changes that Al Gore wanted to Air Port security. You know, the ones Republicans shot down as to expensive.

-Take Clinton's advice and focus on terrorists, instead of the Chinese and Russians.

-Increase funding for CIA. Recruit Arab Language speakers to infilitrate terrorist cells abroad.

-Pay attention to the news. Osama Bin Laden, during a CNN interview declared war on the US.

-Pay attention to his own Presidential briefs. You know, the ones that said Al Qaeda was determined to attack America?

He did none of that.

 

[Freemason9]

Hell, let's impeach every American politician. They're all scoundrels.

 

[asaratis]

Why Benghazi Doesn't Matter To Most Americans

Most Americans are worried about jobs and the economy which are improving. Most Americans do not watch FOX News or hang out on the world wide web looking for issues to attack the President on in order to make Romney look good.

Most Americans know no crime was committed by any Americans here. The President did not attack the US Consulate in Libya.

So why do people who watch FOX News and hang out on the world wide web look for issues to attack the President on in order to make Romney look good, even if it means breaking the compact we have on sticking together when attacked by enemies of America? I don't think these people are evil. I think they're misguided and locked in a bubble where a Noise Machine in the Echo chamber of their world has them programmed to stay paranoid, alarmed, and angry.

It's not 1984 in America -- It's A Brave New World


dD

Benghazi illustrates the fact that Obama should never have been elected our President.

We don't have to look for issues upon which to attack Obama. He creates them every fuckin' day with his lies. He is a boy in a man's job and he just can't cut it!

FUCK Obama and all of his supporters!

 

[Sallow]

If Obama is guilty of a crime for failing to act to prevent the deaths of four Americans--given the lead time of a couple of hours--

Is George W. Bush guilty for the deaths of 3,000 Americans, given a lead time of many months?

And, if so, why isn't this right wing bunch of zealots raising holy hell about THAT?

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

And I do believe many of us, without being crazy 9/11 truthers wanted answers. Demanded answers.

And we got as much as we could hope for considering the absolutely insane plot. And truly that's what it was. Who would ever believe crazy Islamists were going to go kamikaze into the WTC towers?

What was Bush to do?

Ground all air traffic?

Liberals on the other hand don't want to know the truth about Benghazi and appear to be perfectly fine with the "video spontaneous attack" lie.

We had to learn the truth that this was an organized attack from the freaking Libyan President for crying out loud.

What lie?

Initial intel had a demonstration and attack sparked from the video.

And..to this day..the video hasn't been ruled out.

It was republicans that cut funding for embassy security.

And, in any case, embassies are not military bases or fortresses.

 

[Sallow]

Hell, let's impeach every American politician. They're all scoundrels.

How many Republican Presidents have been impeached?

 

[tinydancer]

You put up a post about Reagan's reaction to terrorism after I had one about Obama's and Lockerbie.

Dude, you claimed that REAGAN, not BUSH, but Reagan, did nothing to respond to terrorism. "Cut and Run," was your claim, right?

So I corrected your lie.



Really?

Cool, so you'll retract the claim that Lockerbie was a response? "Blew up in his face" I believe was the bullshit you floated?



Oh, I agree.

Another backflip jim.

Because Reagan didn't respond to Lockerbie?

ROFL...

Reagan was pretty weak when it came to terrorism.

Which..kind of makes sense..since he was creating many future ones. Like his funding of Osama Bin Laden and his band of happy muj warriors. Or making secret deals with the Iranians that took American hostages. Or helping the nun raping Contras.

But all one has to do is look at his response to the bombing which killed 250 marines.

Yessiree bob..you are some stable ground..

Aren't you interested at all in what really happened in Benghazi? Why does it always have to be "Boooooooooooooosh" and "Reagan" screwed up too?

Lame.

Oh and by the way regarding the Mujahideen, Carter armed them first. I'm sick to death of this crap of blaming only Reagan.

Because it's bullshit. Reagan just carried on Carter's policy.

Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan.

The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions.

And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese.

We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Againsheila]

Hell, let's impeach every American politician. They're all scoundrels.

I'll go for that

 

[Sallow]

Dude, you claimed that REAGAN, not BUSH, but Reagan, did nothing to respond to terrorism. "Cut and Run," was your claim, right?

So I corrected your lie.



Really?

Cool, so you'll retract the claim that Lockerbie was a response? "Blew up in his face" I believe was the bullshit you floated?



Oh, I agree.



Because Reagan didn't respond to Lockerbie?

ROFL...

Reagan was pretty weak when it came to terrorism.

Which..kind of makes sense..since he was creating many future ones. Like his funding of Osama Bin Laden and his band of happy muj warriors. Or making secret deals with the Iranians that took American hostages. Or helping the nun raping Contras.

But all one has to do is look at his response to the bombing which killed 250 marines.

Yessiree bob..you are some stable ground..

Aren't you interested at all in what really happened in Benghazi? Why does it always have to be "Boooooooooooooosh" and "Reagan" screwed up too?

Lame.

Oh and by the way regarding the Mujahideen, Carter armed them first. I'm sick to death of this crap of blaming only Reagan.

Because it's bullshit. Reagan just carried on Carter's policy.

Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan.

The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions.

And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese.

We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep..true about Carter.

But the mission changed with Reagan..it went from "harrass" to "victory".

But maybe you didn't know that.

 

[Sallow]

Hell, let's impeach every American politician. They're all scoundrels.

I'll go for that

Of course you would.

Because no Republican President has ever been impeached.

 

[Againsheila]

Hell, let's impeach every American politician. They're all scoundrels.

I'll go for that

Of course you would.

Because no Republican President has ever been impeached.

Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

BTW, I'm a moderate and I will not be voting for Romney OR Obama. The dems and the reps have done more damage to this country than any other two groups in history and that includes the English during the revolutionary war.

 

[asaratis]

All you silly people that deflect the argument away from Obama's ineptness and try to focus on some allegedly similar failure of another politician from the past...you make me sick! You can't defend what that WORM did in the Benghazi terror attack so you bring out things that make you think badly of other people.

Obama is totally UNFIT to be our President! He should do us all a favor and step down!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Short list?

-Institute the changes that Al Gore wanted to Air Port security. You know, the ones Republicans shot down as to expensive.

You're so full of shit.

{The report advanced 20 serious recommendations to strengthen aviation security. The proposals called for a 60-day test for matching bags with passengers on domestic flights and a computer-based system of “profiling” passengers.

Also proposed were “vulnerability assessments” at every commercial airport in the country, increased numbers of bomb-sniffing dogs, better screening and training of the workers who examined bags, and more frequent tests of their work.

At a press conference on Sept. 9, Vice President Gore declared his strong support for these proposals. But this support did not last for long.

“Within 10 days, the whole [airline] industry jumped all over Al Gore,” commissioner Victoria Cummock, a citizen activist whose husband was killed on Pan Am 103, would later claim.

As the Boston Globe would report five years later, this pressure took the form of an intense lobbying campaign aimed at the White House.

On Sept. 19, Gore backed off the proposal in a letter to Carol Hallett, president of the industry’s trade group, the Air Transport Association.

Wrote Gore, “I want to make it very clear that it is not the intent of this administration or of the commission to create a hardship for the air transportation industry or to cause inconvenience to the traveling public.”}

How Al Gore subverted his own aviation commission

Hey, you're a democrat; you lie.

-Take Clinton's advice and focus on terrorists, instead of the Chinese and Russians.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Now this is just funny - I mean, you lie about everything, but Dubya was focused on the Ruskies, huh?

Oh, that Clinton "advice," "Bin Laden determined to attack."

Well fuck, THAT is some actionable intel. Who couldn't look at that and know that aircraft would be hijacked on 9/11 and used for kamakazie attacks?

Seriously, you're a fucking clown, a partisan buffoon.

-Increase funding for CIA. Recruit Arab Language speakers to infilitrate terrorist cells abroad.

{ "I think America — America never made up for the Clinton peace dividend; America never made up for the gutting of the intelligence services that Bill Clinton did," Giuliani said Nov. 2, 2007, on Bloomberg TV's Political Capital With Al Hunt. "I think those are Tenet's words, by the way, that Bill Clinton gutted American intelligence — 20, 30 percent cuts," Giuliani said, referring to former CIA director George Tenet, who has taken much of the heat for not foreseeing the 9/11 attacks.

Given that his fellow front-runner, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, was first lady during that time, Giuliani is eager to paint the most unflattering portrait he can of the Clinton administration's antiterrorism record.

It is true that Clinton oversaw decreases in the intelligence budget and that Tenet has described the budget situation when he became CIA director in 1997, four years into Clinton's presidency, as a disaster. But Tenet has never placed blame on Clinton in the way Giuliani describes (which makes sense since Clinton made him director). }

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...udy-giuliani/hes-on-point-but-still-off-base/

Lie much?

-Pay attention to the news. Osama Bin Laden, during a CNN interview declared war on the US.

In 1994...

So it would be Clinton who should have paid attention.

-Pay attention to his own Presidential briefs. You know, the ones that said Al Qaeda was determined to attack America?

He did none of that.

Such actionable intel.

"Bin Laden determined to attack." Fucking a, that's all we needed to stop the attack.

 

[Pheonixops]

Obama's favored tool is appeasement.

How has that worked historically?

How is getting this OBL and other top tier, middle, and lower tier AQ operatives, using drones in a liberal manner, and actively fighting the famed 'war on terror' by this Administration called "apeasement"?

The guy has a neo-con foreign policy you all should love him!

He just let 4 Americans be sacrificed to avoid riling up the Muslim Brotherhood. And if a couple of guys hadn't disobeyed orders, 30 Americans would be dead.

Tell me that's not appeasement. Lie to me.

Prove to me that he actually gave the order not to engage the enemy. We both don't know what happened, all you are working off of is a combination of 'leaks' and conjecture by conservative talking heads who are doing this solely as a way to attack him. They should be ashamed of themselves to try to use this incident and tragedy as a political football.
You don't know if that General was relieved from duty because he didn't act any more than it was because he wanted to act and didn't follow orders from his chain of command. The President was friends with the Ambassador, I think that the incident needs to be investigated by a bi-partisan panel. I think and know that someone DID drop the ball on this one.
If you people want to give the President all of the 'credit' for this incident, it's pretty hypocritical of you to not want to give him the 'credit' and distance him away from getting OBL.

 

[Pheonixops]

Obama's incompetence continues to kill Americans. He is a dangerous buffoon. Without having to worry about reelection, can anyone even imagine the disaster he would be in a second term?

A LOT LESS than the guy you most likely voted for two terms in a row and the Iraq debacle where thousands were killed because of some bogus war built on errors and misinformation and a STUPID nation-building experiment. You guys have some nerve!

 

[Uncensored2008]

A LOT LESS than the guy you most likely voted for two terms in a row and the Iraq debacle where thousands were killed because of some bogus war built on errors and misinformation and a STUPID nation-building experiment. You guys have some nerve!

Well, there you go.

We should ignore Obama lying to the American people because BOOOOOSSHHHH.

It's kind of a "catch all" for you leftist-regressives. Anything can be covered up with a good BOOOOOSSHHHH.

Hey, if that doesn't work, you can call us racist!

 

[Pheonixops]

It's obvious that the Ambassador and the three men assassinated on September 11, 2012 mean very little to you and especially the fact that they were abandoned and refused aid three times by your dear leader. Then there's the fact that General Carter Ham was relieved of duty immediately after refusing to abandon the people in Ben Ghazi

What matters to Phoenixops is his party obtaining power then retaining power.

The middle and right don't understand the left. The right operates on principle. There are certain ideals that drive the right; freedom of speech, the protection of innocent life, safeguarding the right of people to defend themselves, the right to freely negotiate deals with other free people, etc. The right seeks people and parties that support the principles they hold.

The right stumbles in thinking that the left is the same as them, but just with different principle. But the right is wrong about the left, the left has no principles. They have loyalty to party - period. Right or wrong are defined by party goals, and can change in an instant to meet with party objectives. The left is utterly and completely free of any hint of integrity, they are not encumbered by notions of morality or honor - only party matters. Leftists will say or do anything to promote the party. Some think that exposing Obama for a liar and a fool will sway the left - it won't. Gauxtohell and Candycorn already know that Obama lied and betrayed these men - they just don't happen to give a fuck - they serve the party, they have ZERO integrity. If Obama raped and murdered a 6 year old boy on national TV, they would be scrambling to spin it so that damage to the party was minimized.

The left doesn't give a fuck about facts, they serve the party.

I would LOVE to see Gary Johnson get elected and the Libertarians gain more seats in Congress. I just think that you 2016 and World Nut Daily folks are pretty fucked up individuals who want to obtain and retain power. I listened to the two scumbags hannity and limbaugh today, they expose your 'principles' quite clearly. The fat fuck limbaugh tried to make an issue of Obama suspending his campaigning today, had Obama campaigned today, the fat fuck and his minions like you would have complained about. Take those 'right wing principles' and shove them. Signing the PA was sure looking out for our Civil Liberties. The PA was enacted by republicans, Obama is no better than you guys because he extended it and signed the NDAA. He has the neocon policies as you guys but you knock him for that.
Where were the WMD's that you Administration claimed were in Iraq? Thanks for the laugh.

 

[tinydancer]

I think you'll have to be more specific on that "lead time" for the 3,000. If you are talking about 9/11, where's your proof that there were several months "lead time"?

I don't even know how you can compare the two. Well, if Bush had told the fire department and the police department not to respond when the WTC was hit by the first plane, you might have a point...otherwise it's just garbage.

And I do believe many of us, without being crazy 9/11 truthers wanted answers. Demanded answers.

And we got as much as we could hope for considering the absolutely insane plot. And truly that's what it was. Who would ever believe crazy Islamists were going to go kamikaze into the WTC towers?

What was Bush to do?

Ground all air traffic?

Liberals on the other hand don't want to know the truth about Benghazi and appear to be perfectly fine with the "video spontaneous attack" lie.

We had to learn the truth that this was an organized attack from the freaking Libyan President for crying out loud.

What lie?

Initial intel had a demonstration and attack sparked from the video.

And..to this day..the video hasn't been ruled out.

It was republicans that cut funding for embassy security.

And, in any case, embassies are not military bases or fortresses.

This compound didn't even have the basics.

And are you going to try to tell me that Marines couldn't have been transferred to Libya from Embassies in Britain, Belgium, Ireland or Canada for example?

That no one in this administration thought that the Embassy in Brussels was secure and maybe Ambassador Stevens needed Marines more in Libya?

And that all this pathetic administration could come up with were two Libyan Militias to guard the Consulate?

Are you serious?