Posted by Tina
A cable that was sent from Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi directly to Hillary Clinton at the State Department about ten Al Qaeda groups included the warning that an attack on the facility could not be defended and expressed a desperate need for security help has been revealed to Kathryn Herridge of FOX News.
Herridge: “What I see is a growing body of evidence that the State Department has culpability for the death of the Ambassador and those three Americans.”
Most in the mainstream media are still ignoring the “growing body of evidence”. The administration has changed its position several times since their cover story blaming an obscure video bombed. In one instance they cited the vague “fog of war”. Old media has basically accepted this explanation, although they would never have done so when George W. Bush was president.
The San Diego Union Tribune Editorial Board is not ignoring this story…they are hitting the administration hard…as they should. Headline:
“YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF AN AMERICAN HERO ON YOUR HANDS”
There was no “fog.” There was no spontaneous uprising. Thanks to a drone and other surveillance technology, the White House’s national security team knew in real time that the U.S. consulate and a “safe house” a mile away in Benghazi were under coordinated attack by a well-armed group, not from a protest that unexpectedly escalated. Over a seven-hour span on Sept. 11, the besieged Americans made at least two urgent requests for help; the U.S. military has considerable assets in the area that could have been deployed to Benghazi.
Who told the besieged Americans they were out of luck?
A good question! Ambassador Chris Stevens, security officials Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and information officer Sean Smith died on Sept. 11 in Benghazi …their deaths could have been prevented. The Ambassador could have been brought home. Security could have been increased. There was more than sufficient time given the information that was readily available at least a month in advance.
This administration should be sent packing over this if nothing else. VOTE!
I never thought I’d see the day when I’d be concuring with Geraldo, of all people. But “bloodlust” is definitely the word to characterize the irrationality, and the very decided tinge of personal vendetta that pervades your crusade, here.
People … “Life is not an action movie.”
Fox News is the only major network giving comprehensive coverage on the Benghazi debacle.
No wonder Chris and progressives hate Fox.
If there were a sitting Republican president the lame stream would be in a feeding frenzy.
Johnan Goldgberg nails it —
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332103/benghazi-no-october-surprise-jonah-goldberg
What goes on in Vegas does not necessarily stay in Vegas. This Op Ed is making the rounds —
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html
Life is not an action movie? What the heck are you trying to say Libs? And what crusade are “we” on?
Oh, wait, you mean because we are genuinely troubled that terrorists have gotten away with murder in Benghazi, that we should just ignore the facts, ignore the lies and be quiet and let Obama, et al, bear no accountability…that crusade? Nah, not gonna happen.
Let me see…I’m getting older and my memory isn’t what it once was….what was that catchy little phrase…hmmmm…Oh yeah, and it’s much more fitting and, oh yeah, personal:
“People died…Obama lied!
Don’t make me count the ways that make this a total, fatal, screw up!
Just got an email about Obama firing two admirals over the Benghazi attack. This is what I could find. Most links won’t open, assuming busy traffic. One even mentioned a military coup against Obama.
Has anyone else heard about this?
http://unitedconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-fires-top-admiral-for-advocating.html
Monday, October 29, 2012
Obama Fires Top Admiral For Advocating Libyan Rescue? – Constitutional Emergency
Obama Fires Top Admiral For Advocating Libyan Rescue? – Constitutional Emergency
US news reports on Obamas unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouettes removal was for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment that arose during the strike groups deployment to the Middle East.
This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouettes firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to assist and provide intelligence for American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
http://columbus.craigslist.org/pol/3380408197.html
Obama Fires Top Admiral For Advocating Libyan Rescue?
This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to “assist and provide intelligence for” American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders:
“The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”
Here us another article. This looks really bad folks.
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=7179985
October 28, 2012
Obama Fires Top Admiral As Coup Plot Fears Grows
U.S. military commanders say Obama is incompetent as Commander n’ Chief. Obama is guilty of dereliction of duty during the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
A shocking new report prepared by the Foreign Military Intelligence Main Directorate (GRU) of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, and circulating in the Kremlin today, states that President Obama has fired one of the United States Navys most powerful Admirals over growing fears the US Military is planning an overthrow of his government.
Goldberg often nails it…great piece, Pie!
“A shocking new report prepared by the Foreign Military Intelligence Main Directorate (GRU) of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, and circulating in the Kremlin today, states that President Obama has fired one of the United States Navys most powerful Admirals over growing fears the US Military is planning an overthrow of his government.”
And you…believe this, do you, Peggy?
I really hope the pathologically gullible do not turn out to vote in this election.
Hold on. The information I posted last night may not be accurate. Will check for future updates.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/27/questionable-reports-africom-general-ham-and-rear-admiral-gaouette-replaced-rumored-cover-connection-to-benghazi-slaughter/
Re Chris’: “I really hope the pathologically gullible do not turn out to vote in this election.”
Yet they have and are. They are known as Obama voters. Democrats have long had a lock on the pathologically stupid vote, Chris, and part of the proof is you, not Peggy.
Peggy I imagine at this point the story has spun off a rumor regarding General Ham:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/has_general_ham_been_fired.html
“Hold on. The information I posted last night may not be accurate.”
Well, there’s a [number unknown] time for everything.
Pie, I’m not the one promoting conspiracy theories about a military coup. I’m not the one who promoted the false claim that Obamacare bans mammograms for women under 50. But we already know you are a fan of conspiracy theorists, given your consistent linking to a 9/11 truther site, so really, there’s no point in arguing with you about this.
This much is known —
1) General Ham has said that he was never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.
2) Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces.
3) Only but a pathologically gullible and stupid goose stepping Obama voter will not see the conflict in 1) and 2).
4) Suddenly General Ham decides to resign.
Timing is everything. Ask the families of the dead who were horribly murdered in Benghazi.
And you…believe this, do you, Peggy?
And ironic (and hilarious) twist on the “communist dupe” of years gone by. I love this site!
“Oh, wait, you mean because we are genuinely troubled that terrorists have gotten away with murder in Benghazi, ….”
No one’s getting away with anything. Lots of people have been arrested. Some have been blown up.
Eventually, and discreetly, we will get to the bottom of this “embassy versus CIA station” business and whether it complicated the response, (and if you read your Le Carre, you’d know that all embassies are, to a degree, CIA stations) but all this conspiracy theorizing is, I’m sorry, irrational.
As a matter of fact, the CIA has today issued a rare and public statement to the effect that you are all off your nuts.
Re Chris: “But we already know you are a fan of conspiracy theorists, given your consistent linking to a 9/11 truther site, so really, there’s no point in arguing with you about this.”
My consistent linking? What nonsense. When have I ever linked to truthers? (Not that I think they are a group deserving scorn and ridicule, I just think they are pursuing an unimportant and lost cause.)
Sheesh, Chris, you are such a consistently self-aggrandizing liar and silly ass. You might as well have said I consistently link to 911 Truthers, it would have the same connection to reality, which is to say none.
By the way, I am not arguing anything here with Chris in this blog. My only goal in interacting with Chris is to assist him in making and ass of himself.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Dear anyone who reads this, by “ass” I mean the animal ass, not the slang for the body part. While I admit to helping Chris to make and ass of himself I must include my sincere apologies to members of a noble and far more intelligent breed than Chris, Equus africanus asinus. Using this animal to describe people like Chris in a derogatory manner is a species specific human idiom I am guilty of. Nothing personal. Moreover, I would never insult any Equus africanus asinus by calling them a progressive. Chalk it up to irony.
In any case, making an ass of himself is something Chris does consistently without my assistance, but I do so enjoy giving him a boost now and then.
Lastly, there is really no point in arguing with Chris about anything. Which is why I don’t. He is a dyed-in-the-wool member in good standing of the pathologically gullible stupid vote.
To argue with Chris makes just about as much sense as trying to teach any species of ass the kinetic theory of gases.
P.S. to the good folks at Post Scripts — I hope you will allow this post. It is in response (and defense) to Chris’ original snotty remark “And you…believe this, do you, Peggy? I really hope the pathologically gullible do not turn out to vote in this election.”
I promise to leave poor Chris alone for a while now and let his own pathology speak for itself.
A short aside.
My comments about 911 Truthers above were intended to further confuse the already very confused Chris. (Never give a sucker an even break.)
True, I have never once linked to 911 Truther sites (at least that I can recall) and certainly not consistently, but I did once ridicule them without mercy in a letter to the ER way back in 2002 or there abouts. I have about as much use for 911 Truthers as I have for Michael Moore and Chris.
Maybe Chris meant “Birthers”, to whom I have also never linked, much less consistently. “Birthers” are an unimportant and lost cause who may or may not deserve the ridicule heaped upon them.
Moreover, 911 Truthers are something Chris should know more about than me, that is an organization of his peers, not mine.
In any case, Chris is a consistent fool and liar besides being a complete lunatic.
I wish I had wrapped this up all in one post, but here I go again —
Re Chris: Pie, I’m not the one promoting conspiracy theories about a military coup.
Neither has Peggy nor Post Scripts, you insufferable jerk.
As for your idiot claim that people were arguing that Obamacare “bans” mammograms, I don’t recall anyone saying there was a ban. Please cite and correct me if I am wrong. I do recall some folks discussing whether or not Obamacare limited covered access to mammograms to certain age groups.
So, dear Chris, again you just **ck yourself beautifully.
Chris, I had no intent to mislead or promote a conspiracy theory. The information was on Political, a military blog and several others sites I couldnt get into. I thought it was newsworthy since the alphabet media filters so much of the news to promote the Obama agenda this forcing me/us to the internet to find out the truth.
Ive been most of the day at a friends funeral so havent had time to look into it further. I will now that Im home and if I find out anything I will share it. You may not like what I find or it may not be true at all, but either way we the right to know.
Your snide remark was uncalled for. I’ve never I\intentionally presented false information. The facts are just that, the facts. You may not agree with them, which is your right, but I have the right to present them none the less.
Libs, Whats your favorite Koolaid flavor?
Pie, you’ve linked to Info Wars at least twice in the past month. Info Wars is the world’s biggest truther site. It is run by Alex Jones, who believes George W. Bush personally ordered the attack on the World Trade Center for political gain.
I’ve explained this to you each time you’ve linked there, so I’ll just assume you didn’t read those comments, and that you are not intentionally lying.
“Re Chris: Pie, I’m not the one promoting conspiracy theories about a military coup.
Neither has Peggy nor Post Scripts, you insufferable jerk.”
I’m sorry, but Peggy did do exactly that. It’s just a few comments up.
“As for your idiot claim that people were arguing that Obamacare “bans” mammograms, I don’t recall anyone saying there was a ban. Please cite and correct me if I am wrong. I do recall some folks discussing whether or not Obamacare limited covered access to mammograms to certain age groups.”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/08/woman-doc-speaks-out-on-b.html
The above link contains a video submitted by Peggy in which Dr. Jill Vecchio falsely claims she will face fines and possible jailtime if she recommends mammograms to women under 50 because of Obamacare. (In reality, Obamacare PAYS for mammograms for women as young as 40, and there are no restrictions on when doctors can recommend them.) In other words, she is claiming that doctors are “banned” from recommending mammograms to women under 50. Trying to get Peggy and Tina to admit that this was wrong was like pulling teeth. From a lion.
“P.S. to the good folks at Post Scripts — I hope you will allow this post. It is in response (and defense) to Chris’ original snotty remark “And you…believe this, do you, Peggy? I really hope the pathologically gullible do not turn out to vote in this election.””
And you can’t see how out of proportion your response was?
Peggy, perhaps you did not have the intent to mislead. But you’ve got to have a smell test! When you read something that says the military is planning an overthrow of the president, and you can’t verify it, why post it at all? You should know it isn’t true. When you spread rumors like this, regardless of your intent, it is poison to our democratic process which relies on an informed public.
So far I still do not understand what Obama is being accused of.
Chris: “The above link contains a video submitted by Peggy in which Dr. Jill Vecchio falsely claims she will face fines and possible jailtime if she recommends mammograms to women under 50 because of Obamacare. (In reality, Obamacare PAYS for mammograms for women as young as 40, and there are no restrictions on when doctors can recommend them.)”
Dr Veccio’s concerns about being jailed or fined were based on a portion of Obamacare that does contain legal language about fines and jail time as well as the fact that the HHS secretary was given incredible powers under the act to change what Obamacare covers, or does not cover, in future years.
“So far I still do not understand what Obama is being accused of.”
So far as I can tell you have more interest in discrediting those who do think they know why he is being questioned and who are alarmed at what the evidence suggests than you are in discovering “what Obama is being accused of”.
A little more curiosity and a little less attitude toward those who have information might help you to understand.
Should I be flattered that Chris follows me so closely? If I have linked (as he claims) to Info Wars, was it about 911 Truthers or supporting their arguments? I do know have linked many news organizations that all of whom have carried news about 911 Truthers and Birthers.
FAIL (By an obvious classical fallacy, but why should I bother to point it to this idiot, especially when we have been here before?)
Banned is your word, Chris. I have been there, read that. False claims? That depends on your reading of the 13000 pages and counting of the Obamacare monstrosity your political heroes produced.
FAIL
I’m sorry, but Peggy did do exactly that. It’s just a few comments up.
That is your asinine and prejudiced interpretation, jerk.
FAIL
My response was out of proportion?
FAIL
I have you exactly, Chris. Just how small is your penis? Was it c*ck punched at an early age by the old woman featured in the Michael Moore political ad?
You really are pathetic. That is to say, driven by pathos. That is to say, pathological.
Since my stalker Chris claims I have linked to Info Wars in the past (something I will not argue since I cannot recall when and why — perhaps he can cite such) I clicked on Info wars and came up with this article —
Jersey Shore Declares Martial Law
http://www.infowars.com/iconic-boardwalk-town-in-new-jersey-declares-martial-law-after-sandy-devastation/
Can you believe it, those disgusting scum at Info Wars are reporting that martial law is in effect in several towns stricken by looters following the destruction of the storm.
Oh wait, martial law is in effect.
If, following to Chris’ count, this third time I have linked to Info wars qualifies as “consistent” then I am guilty of supporting 911 Truthers.
Chris, I am again forced to speak at your level to get through to you, the level of your compatriot Michael Moore whom you find so hilarious. You, sir, are a complete f**ing idiot.
Tina: “Dr Veccio’s concerns about being jailed or fined were based on a portion of Obamacare that does contain legal language about fines and jail time as well as the fact that the HHS secretary was given incredible powers under the act to change what Obamacare covers, or does not cover, in future years.”
But, for the zillionth time, that’s not at all what she said. You’re making an unwarranted assumption while ignoring her actual words. She was saying she would be fined and could face jailtime specifically for doing something that was not only completely legal, but PAID FOR by the law she was condemning. If you can’t admit how completely dishonest that is, then you have a problem.
Pie: “Just how small is your penis?”
Seriously? You are f*cking pathetic.
Chris: “When you spread rumors like this, regardless of your intent, it is poison to our democratic process which relies on an informed public.”
Since when did informing the public become poison? With the alphabet medias almost complete silence on the Benghazi attack, its participation in providing coverage about the security request before the attack and it shirking their journalistic responsibility to provide us with the facts instead of the video cover-up after the attack forces those of us wanting to know the truth to seek out alternative sources. The sources I provided I deemed reliable since one was even from a former Navy SEALS team newsletter.
You may not like my sources Chris, but as long as the MSM is in bed with Obama to get him reelected I will continue to provide that information with updates as they become available. I find your agreeing with this censorship of information shocking. According to the facts that have come out from these sources state there is currently available a paper trail of what the president did and when he did it. Why do we have to wait until December for an investigative committee to present their finding? If the information is all there present it now, not after the election so we know how our president responded to this crises. We have the right to know. And we wouldnt know this paper trail information didnt exist without these alternative media sources.
As for what happened with Admiral Hamm and why he was reassigned/relieved of duty, again we are entitled to know the truth now. I just Googled Admiral Hamm Benghazi and didnt find ONE link to any major media source. Hamms being relieved of his duties during his tour as stated in the articles I did provide is highly unprecedented and therefore newsworthy in my opinion. You may not find it so, but I and many others do.
Also, what happened with Admiral Garoutte during the same time that Hamm was removed should have prompted everyone to ask why when both took place within days of the Benghazi attack. Where were the journalist? Where was the information we should have been provided to decide if our president had anything to do with the Benghazi attack, its cover up and his failure to provide adequate security for individuals who worked for him and depended on him to protect them?
You may not still think the answers to these questions is important and dont reflect on who we elect, but I do. And until the MSM steps up and does its job of reporting the FACTS, I and others will continue to seek out and provide what information is out there to hopefully come up with the truth.
My understanding of this blog is to provide each of us with the opportunity to share ideas, opinions and information. With Jack and Tina as the managers I will let them decide the validity and appropriates of our contributions to the discussion and not be swayed if you like or approve of them or not.
“Since when did informing the public become poison?”
I don’t think posting an obviously false article about the military preparing a coup against the president counts as “informing the public.” That seems more like “misinforming” to me. Like I said before: there are some things that you should be able to tell are false right away. You need a smell test.
“I just Googled Admiral Hamm Benghazi and didnt find ONE link to any major media source.”
I got this, but it’s mostly about Admiral Garroutte and it doesn’t go very in-depth:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/
The Defense Department denies that Hamm was fired:
Defense Department leaders remain fully confident in the commander of U.S. Africa Command, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told Pentagon reporters here today.
Little said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, maintain complete faith in the job Army Gen. Carter F. Ham is doing as Africoms leader.
General Ham is doing an exceptional job leading Africa Command. He has the full confidence of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said.
His decision to retire has been an entirely personal decision to move on, Little said. People retire at certain stages of their career and thats whats happening in this case.
President Barack Obama announced Oct. 18 his plans to nominate Army Gen. David M. Rodriguez to succeed Ham as leader of Africom, the newest combatant command, which is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. The command encompasses all of Africa and its adjacent waters except for Egypt.
The chairman dismissed alleged reasons for Hams departure in an Oct. 29 statement.
“The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on [Sept. 11,] 2012 is absolutely false, Dempsey said in his statement. General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been ongoing since July. He continues to serve in Africom with my complete confidence.”
Little also dispelled rumors that Ham will step down from his position next year for any reason other than personal choice.
Theres been a lot of rumor and speculation, particularly in the blogosphere, about General Ham, he said. And that speculation and those rumors are absolutely, categorically false.
He will continue to lead Africa Command, he said, and he is on the job, doing it effectively, and we expect him to do so until he retires and transitions to General Rodriguez — if General Rodriguez is confirmed by the United States Senate.
The press secretary said he didnt have a timeline for when Ham will step down and Rodriguez might assume command.
A lot of it will depend on Senate action, Little said. We believe the hearings will take place in the next couple of months, and then well decide when a change of command is appropriate.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118400
I do think it’s important to know the facts, Peggy. I also think it’s important to approach all information with a rational eye. Occam’s Razor is always an important tool to use.
Re: “The chairman dismissed alleged reasons for Hams departure in an Oct. 29 statement.
“The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on [Sept. 11,] 2012 is absolutely false, Dempsey said in his statement. General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been ongoing since July. He continues to serve in Africom with my complete confidence.”
Little also dispelled rumors that Ham will step down from his position next year for any reason other than personal choice.
Theres been a lot of rumor and speculation, particularly in the blogosphere, about General Ham, he said. And that speculation and those rumors are absolutely, categorically false.
Politics cannot be dismissed in a situation like this; the people have a right to know what actually did happen. The media was never squeamish about questioning the official story when George Bush was in office. I think it is highly suspicious that major media outlets have ignored this story and refuse to ask many questions of the administration. After all it was the administration that put out that phony story about an obscure tape causing a spontaneous protest…the saddest excuse I can imagine. I did find this bit of information in the Washington Examiner. It quotes two prominent Washington figures:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/
The media is covering for President Obama…as they have throughout his presidency. The contrast to how GWB was treated, particularly regarding the war, constitutes journalistic malpractice. Lest we forget…
Pat Caddell, leading Democrat analyst and pollster:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pat-caddell-says-media-have-become-enemy-of-the-american-people/
Tina: “After all it was the administration that put out that phony story about an obscure tape causing a spontaneous protest…the saddest excuse I can imagine.”
That’s not true. Those responsible for the attacks are the ones who first claimed that they were protesting the video:
“According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/questions-and-answers-on-the-benghazi-attack.html?_r=3&ref=politics&
Furthermore, the attack coincided with protests in Cairo that were indeed in reaction to the video. See the above link, and here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/meast/egypt-us-embassy-protests/index.html
It is not surprising that many believed there was a connection between the two events.
Pat Caddell’s statements are also false. He says, “Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was covered up for nine days because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack.”
In fact, Obama referred to the incident as an “act of terror” twice in the two days following the attack. Furthermore, as the New York Times article above reports:
“On Sept. 19, Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said about the killings in Benghazi during a Senate hearing, Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. The next day, asked about Mr. Olsens testimony, Mr. Carney declared, It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
Chris: “That’s not true. Those responsible for the attacks are the ones who first claimed that they were protesting the video”
It is true Chris. See video of Obama and administration officials insisting that obscure video caused the Benghazi attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=znVqyfxfbRQ
The “video” narrative was challenged; the administration backed off of that floated story when questioned but Susan Rice went on 3 national Sunday TV shows to insist it was the video.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senators-demand-answers-why-did-susan-rice-insist-video-caused-benghazi-attack
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/11/04/obama-knew-by-2pm-on-september-12-at-the-latest-but-invented-a-false-narrative-nevertheless/
All of this is disgusting since we now know that the administration was aware (or should have been aware) one month ahead of time that the situation was very dangerous and the Ambassador needed more security.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/benghazi-was-not-unexpected-nor-caused-by-a-youtube-video-and-the-state-department-has-known-all-along/
“‘On Sept. 19, Matthew G. Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said about the killings in Benghazi during a Senate hearing, Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. The next day, asked about Mr. Olsens testimony, Mr. Carney declared, It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.'”
Sure after a huge outcry and challenge to the “official video story that the administration was pushing far more than they were admitting that it was terrorist related. Obama basically painted America as a hateful nation at the UN making us the greater enemy for our tolerance of speech while excusing acts of terrorism based on expression. Despicable in my book and it should be thoroughly investigated but I doubt it will ever happen. too many Americans are unwilling to challenge democrats for major screw ups.
The size of the bed that CBS and other MSM are in with Obama and his administration just went from a queen to a king.
“Bret Baier blasts ’60 Minutes’ for handling of Obama’s Benghazi interview”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/bret-baier-blasts-minutes-for-handling-of-obamas-148458.html?hp=l20
For those of you who don’t like Fox here’s another one.
http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/11/cbs-coverup-obama-refused-to-call-benghazi-terror-in-60-minutes-interview/
And another one. Note I couldn’t find any from the MSM.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/05/cbs-news-suppressed-60-minutes-video-to-protect-obama-on-benghazi/
Tina: “It is true Chris. See video of Obama and administration officials insisting that obscure video caused the Benghazi attack.”
You must not have understood my objection. Yes, of course it’s true that the White House said the attack was in response to the video. But you claim that this was a “phony narrative,” even though your own sources confirm there was evidence that the attack WAS a reaction to the video. Some of the terrorists blamed the video for the attack, and given the protests against the video in Cairo and other Muslim-majority cities, it was plausible that there was a connection. So it doesn’t make sense to conclude that the White House was intentionally constructing a false narrative about the reasons behind the attack; there was conflicting information, and the video was a possible factor. I do think the White House should have been more clear that they did not know the true motive before they spoke, but it strains credulity to believe they intentionally lied about it. There is nothing to gain from doing so. Occam’s Razor says that they were confused, not deceitful.
I still don’t understand the motive you’re imputing onto the president. One of your sources says he lied about the video for political advantage, but how does that make sense? How would that give him any political advantage?
“Obama basically painted America as a hateful nation at the UN making us the greater enemy for our tolerance of speech while excusing acts of terrorism based on expression.”
Sometimes I wonder if you get a thrill from saying things that are blatantly, pants-on-fire false. Because Obama said the exact opposite of what you’re claiming he said. He made it clear that the U.S. is NOT a hateful nation, saying that the video does not represent Americans. And he did NOT excuse acts of terrorism; he made it very clear that the video did not justify a violent response. Here are excerpts of his speech from Mediaite which prove that what you are saying is false:
In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much theyre willing to tolerate freedom for others, said the president. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video. And I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.
The president then added that America welcomes all races and faiths, including Muslims, and so he understands why many might have been offended by such a video. However, he added, I know there are some who ask why dont we just ban such a video? And the answer is enshrined in our laws. Our constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian and yet we do not ban blasphemy.
As Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept people will call me awful things every day. And i will always defend their right to do so, he said to applause. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech. Voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy.
The president then went on to condemn the actual violence that took place across the region: On this we must agree, there is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
He also scorned the politics of hate, saying that playing up inter-ethnic conflicts offers only false hope to the youth. Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education, he added, smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach, attacking an embassy wont create the a single job.
That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we can do together, he concluded.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obama-condemns-both-disgusting-anti-islam-video-and-mindless-violence-before-the-u-n/
Tina, you have proven once again that your opinion of the president is based on things he’s never done. You constantly make accusations against him that fly in the face of objective reality, claiming he’s said the exact opposite of what he actually said. It’s unfortunate that you are so committed to defeating the president, that you see nothing wrong with such blatant dishonesty.