by Jack Lee
(Chuck Hagel shown left) During Congressional hearings yesterday Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, appeared to release the dogs of war when he proclaimed, “Make No Mistake We Are At War (with ISIS)”. This now makes it unanimous, since ISIS (aka ISIL) has declared war on the United States months ago and said, “Your streets will run red with your blood.”
Hagel’s declaration immediately sparked an outburst from anti-war demonstrators who began shouting, “No more war!” By virtue of their outburst the protesters (Code Pink) were implying they support the only two alternate plans left on the table that could avoid conflict with ISIS. This would be the (1) Run-away-and-hide plan or the (2) Muslim conversion plan.
The latest war proclamation by Hagel appeared to signal an end to Obama’s “Wait-and-See-What-Happens-Next plan” and always in force “The Obama Charm-Charisma-and-Talk Plan.”
Now that we are at war (sort of), President Obama believes you deserve a full explanation why. He also wants you to know who are friends and enemies are because there seems to be some confusion amongst you. The following is from the White House website. We provide it for your consideration and convenience so that you may fully understand this situation:
“Ladies and gentlemen as your President I want to make it perfectly clear why we are engaged in the middle east. Let me break it down for you like this: We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS. Got that? Okay, now hold that thought.
The Iraqi government is mainly Shia. Got it?
We don’t like ISIS, but ISIS is Sunni and is supported by Saudi Arabia who we think is on our side most of the time, 9/11 excepted. Simple, so lets move on.
We don’t like President Assad in Syria because he’s too harsh on rebels who want to behead him. Go figure. He’s also a moderate Sunni, but a different sect of Sunni to ISIS which I like to call ISIL and of course the Saudi Sunnis which are schooled in the Wahhabi tradition. We support the fight against him (Assad), but ISIS, again, which I prefer to call ISIL because it sound cooler, is also fighting against him. That’s good and bad, because we are supporting the rebels, but the rebels also include ISIS aka ISIL and that’s bad. We don’t want to supply ISIL with our support because if they get too big and powerful your blood will run in the street and we do want that do we?
Okay, now remember that we don’t like Iran, they are Shia, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in its fight against ISIS, but they also support Assad. So we’re not sure if we like Iran or not. Russia is also supporting Assad and we are not currently supporting anything Russia does because they have invaded our friends in Ukraine.
So some of our friends support our enemies, but some enemies are now our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, who we want to lose, so they are now our friends, but we don’t want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win because if the people we want to defeat are defeated, they could be replaced by people we like even less.
I hesitate to admit this, but really this is all George Bush’s fault. Because it all this began when we invaded Iraq to drive out Saddam Hussein and kill Al Qaeda terrorists and then build a democratic nation. Unfortunately, we discovered the terrorists were not actually there until we went in to drive them out. But, we did kill the dictator Saddam who was employing very brutal means to keep Sunni, Shiites and Kurds from killing each other. The one area where President Bush and I can agree is that Saddam was evil because he spent millions of tax dollars on himself…and you know how I hate that, but I digress.
In conclusion, it’s all quite simple, really and I’m glad I could explain to you. Now I trust that I will have your support to implement my war plans, which some Republicans in Congress are already calling, Buying-the-same-horse-for-the-3rd time plan. This is unfair, because I’ve not had a chance to develop a plan yet, but when I do I’m sure you will be impressed. So, stay tuned and as soon as I finish this years budget I’ll get right on the war plan. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your attention. You may leave now and go about your little people business whatever it is that little people do. Good day.”
Your President, Barrack Hussein Obama
What part of forever at war is confusing?
They have been selling war since we started to withdraw from Iraq!
war is never the answer..all we ever do is corrupt the Middle east for OIL.
We were on the path to get off out dependence on Oil in the 70’s but that does not fit the GOP agenda. We export the oil here cheap to our enemies. Our prices are high because of it.
Time to get real. To add fuel to the fire we sent our jobs to our enemies. Now Americans are expected to flip Burgers not make goods.
The empire has fallen. Jack Keane on Fox works for several Arms companies and sells war every day.
http://www.thenation.com/article/181601/whos-paying-pro-war-pundits
The intelligence is corrupt and we are hated now. Good Job guys!
Let’s get rid of our dependence and stop shipping our reserves overseas while the prices are down.
next the keystone….. That is low grade oil sands from canada to ship to China not for us and we want to contaminate our aquifers for China?
http://tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/
Canada has sold out to China their conservative Harper signed the FIPA against the will of their people. They fought hard. Our sell out to China is called the TPP and they will try to sneak it in at the last minute.
http://www.canadians.org/blog/harper-sneaks-through-canada-china-fipa-locks-canada-31-years
http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2014/09/13/harpers-sellout-canada-china-fipa-deal-dismays-canadians/
Profit for a few before National Security is a shame.
Conservative means not what ya say it does.
Dewey why must I continually remind you of the obvious? Barrack Hussein Obama is your president – he is not a republican and events in Iraq and Syria are his responsibility. Chuck Hagel, the Secretary of Defense works for Barrack Hussein Obama, and so does our military. Obama is in charge, not republicans! Barrack Hussein Obama is your commander in chief. He doesn’t need the GOP to declare war to send our military into a conflict, it’s all on him.
SO DON’T YOU DARE TRY TO LAY THE BLAME FOR IRAQ ALL ON THE REPUBLICANS, that would be as dishonest as it would be stupid. OBAMA HAS HAD ALMOST 7 YEARS IN OFFICE AND ITS TIME HE ACCEPT SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR GLOBAL EVENTS. IF YOU DON’T LIKE ALL THESE CRISIS’ IN PLAY TODAY – THINK OF OBAMA. Put the blame where it belongs.
Oh, and as far as there being turmoil and violence in Iraq – have you seen their history for the last 2,000 years? Tell me a time when there was a long lasting peace in the middle east, especially in Iraq? Arabs, be they Muslims or something else can’t go 10 minutes without starting a war with someone, somewhere. Maybe it’s the heat, I dunno, but this isn’t a peaceful place in the world, it never has been and it probably never will be until somebody over there finally builds the ultimate weapon of death, a 5 billion kilo-tonne plutonium-neutron bomb and then the whole place gets turned into green glass.
Dewey puts bloviators to shame. He is an output channel channeling every nut job in the known universe. Reminding won’t do a bit of good but I certainly understand the compelling urge to cancel out his propaganda on Post Scripts.
Here’s a man (I guess) that is incapable of considering real world situations and threats. He imagines the “military industrial complex” exists solely to make a few select (evil) people rich…there is no such thing as an actual enemy…unless it’s carbon!
This (idiot) position springs from the false notion that all people are basically good and everything bad that happens is just a big misunderstanding. The narcissists in left leadership believe they can negotiate peace by being friendly. They also believe that if only the war mongering right would calm down (bend to their superior will) our enemies wouldn’t hate anymore. Don’t bother to ask why they aren’t using the same logic to “make friends” with the right…their heads will explode.
The danger this morally corrupted, PC enthralled, economically ignorant, military hating bunch of nut bags have put our nation in is beyond frustrating.
“Your streets will run red with your blood.”
Yes, that would be horrifying, had they the means to make it happen … which they don’t.
Is that all it takes to conquer you, to reduce you to a craven jelly … a declaration?
That’s sad.
Whatever means they had, militarily speaking, we have spent the last several weeks blowing up.
Media-wise, we have a problem. And the solution will not be involving Ol’ Chuck … or you.
Just … just … go away.
Ol Chuck is one of your people Libby. Don’t shoot the messenger, I merely report. I’m not quivering about a declaration, that’s your side again. Please don’t try to avoid being part of this regime – you are practically a spokesperson for democrat liberalism, well, let refine that. You echo the liberal mantra like nobody I have ever seen and when I mock them, as I did in the article, you think somehow I’m with your man Hagel and his boss Obama? lol
Yup, you summed it up nicely Tina.
Libby can’t stand the fact that she voted for this war when she voted for Obama. How sad.
I wish you’d read what I actually write, but that’s expecting much too much, I know.
Pre-911 liberal speak: “…that would be horrifying, had they the means to make it happen.”
There are a number of people in NY and Boston that would beg to differ. Even the reluctant O-man has said this group is better funded and more dangerous than al Qaeda.
“Is that all it takes to conquer you, to reduce you to a craven jelly”
Jelly? Which is it, Libby…mean nasty war monger or mass of jelly?
“Whatever means they had, militarily speaking, we have spent the last several weeks blowing up.”
The problem with leaving this up to liberal progressives is they fail to adequately see the threat, respond inadequately, pretend they have taken care of it and then blame the rotten consequences on anyone or anything but themselves. Benghazi in a nutshell. The rise of ISIS in a nutshell. The failure to follow through in Iraq in a nutshell. Going all the way back to jimmy Carter…the shift to radical Islam in Iran in a nutshell!
Please, Libby, YOU go away! Take your progressive radical wing with you. You are lousy at creating Peace and absolutely useless in winning a war.
Tina: “Jelly? Which is it, Libby…mean nasty war monger or mass of jelly?”
Well, “chickenhawks” are a thing.
And here are some of our soldiers fighting to protect us for God and country.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153182142310031&id=835220030
Chris … it’s a great mistake to make try and make sense out of nonsense. I was explaining this to one of my baby lawyers just last week. You don’t try to contrive some scenario by which the nonsense makes sense … you simply point out that it is … nonsense.
And I truly don’t have the foggiest idea what she’s trying to say. I point out what everybody knows: what war machinery ISIS had, they stole from us (via the Iraqis), and we’ve spent the last several weeks ferreting it out, and blowing it up.
She goes into a frenzy of Carter and Benghazi … that makes no sense at all.
And we point this out.
That’s all.
Yeah…but I wouldn’t throw that one around if I were you given the honorable service of the Post Scripts founder, Mr. Jack Lee, who wrote this article and given the many men who comment here who also have served this nation honorably in the military.
It was Navy and Army, right Jack?
yes, but reserve only. -Jack
Hey! Don’t do that!!!
Honorable military service is honorable military service and absolutely disqualifies you for chickenhawk status!!
I doubt Chris had a clue what he was saying 😉
yes, but reserve only. -Jack
Shopkeeper, in essence … correct?
Not to rub noses or anything … exactly … but I will take issue with the degree to which you … and Tina … feed at the trough …
… and deny culpability for it.
No Libby, I was not a shopkeeper. I did everything that regular navy did, only for less time. I was part of the Black Gang (engine room) and that’s about as Navy as you can get. On the army side, I was again in reserve status. My last 3 years I served at CA National Guard Headquarters in Sacto as the company 1SGT. Some of my guys were the first to be deployed to Chico during that terrible fire that threatened Paradise. I never made it into the field that time, my job was more administrative, calling up soldiers, processing them for active duty and also payroll. Somebody has to do these things, so I did. Did I feed at the public trough, sure. But, did I earn what I got, I like to think so. I also worked in the public sector in a number of jobs for almost 30 years and I paid a lot of taxes. So, am I not entitled to hold a conservative opinion about public employees and the costs involved?
PS Thanks to RHT for his comments.
And now Libs is trying to act all innocent…I was just pointing out that we destroyed the stolen war machinery…that’s all.
BS. That isn’t ALL. Libs always starts with an insult:
Not that I give a rip but describing someone who uses humorous sarcasm to describe HER PRESIDENT’S yes-no-maybe war strategy as being reduced to jelly is just too precious to ignore.
“She goes into a frenzy of Carter and Benghazi … that makes no sense at all.”
If it made sense to people like you, Libby, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Obama would have followed through in Iraq instead of using it as a bludgeon to bash his predecessor, who, it turns out, had a very good long term strategy for defeating this enemy. It included creating a stable, free, democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East which was tough but we did it. The war was won when Obama took the reins. All Obama had to do was present a strong image, negotiate to secure the peace, and keep his eye diligently on the ball.
And…Benghazi would never have happened.
Going back decades Carter wouldn’t have turned Iran over to the radicals and the entire ME might be a very different place today.
Don’t trouble yourself; you don’t get it and probably never will.
Sorry the chickenhawk crack, Jack.
Tina: “Obama would have followed through in Iraq instead of using it as a bludgeon to bash his predecessor, who, it turns out, had a very good long term strategy for defeating this enemy.”
That “long term strategy” included pulling out at the exact same time as Obama! Obama left on Bush’s timetable. You know this.
“It included creating a stable, free, democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East which was tough but we did it. The war was won when Obama took the reins.”
Uh huh…if you say so.
“All Obama had to do was present a strong image, negotiate to secure the peace, and keep his eye diligently on the ball.”
And then the totally rational folks at ISIS wouldn’t have ever dared to cross America! They’d be rendered so feint of heart by a big strong macho president, they’d have to drop their AK-47s just to clutch their pearls!
What a lovely, naive fantasy.
“And…Benghazi would never have happened.”
If you’re counting embassy attacks, Bush had a total of 13 Benghazis happen on his watch. Over 60 people died.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/
And that’s not taking into account the disastrous intelligence failures that led into 9/11 (oh wait, I forgot, that was entirely Clinton’s fault–the buck stops at the last guy when it’s convenient) and the Iraq War, each of which resulted in many more casualties.
So you can take your mindless, hysterical partisan witch hunt and shove it.
“Going back decades Carter wouldn’t have turned Iran over to the radicals and the entire ME might be a very different place today.”
Huh, what about Reagan funding the Taliban? How about Bush Sr. arming Saddam? Hell, let’s go back fifty years and talk about Esienhower overthrowing Mossadeq. Funny how you’re totally cool with America’s “nation-building,” unless it’s a Democrat leading the charge.
“Predictably, Becker never once noted that one of the attacks with an American fatality occurred at an embassy that had been attacked once before. On March 2, 2006 in Karachi, Pakistan, terrorists specifically targeted for assassination a U.S. diplomat named David Foy, so a terrorist suicide bomber hit the embassy, killing Foy and three others. In spite of the fact that the same embassy had been attacked two years earlier — also by a suicide bomber who killed 12 people and injured 51 more — there was no additional security ordered to the compound. Now imagine the unhinged outrage that would’ve been generated if there had been not one but two similar attacks on the Benghazi consulate, the second of which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. And yet when a very similar pair of attacks under Bush occurred, there weren’t 30 investigations or a House Select Committee convened. No emails were made public, no inquests against the administration were suggested and no conspiracy theories were circulated. Nothing.”
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/popular-conservative-publication-tries-and-fails-miserably-to-debunk-our-13-benghazis-article/#SedMLUZERiKP08bR.99
For a time, Jack and I were in the same unit. We were not “shopkeepers”. We were citizen-soldiers. We were proud to wear the uniform, honored to serve our country, and grateful for a chance to make difference.
“A veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.'”
Very nicely said RHT447. In my mind that gives you guys more authority to evaluate what is happening.
Libby: “Not to rub noses or anything … exactly … but I will take issue with the degree to which you … and Tina … feed at the trough”
Another example of Libby talking through her hat!
Jack did not feed at the trough you twit. He was paid for his WORK and SERVICE!
I do not feed at the trough; I am paid a lower than free market rate (low bid) for a product…local governments get something of value that the public needs or requires.
Feeding at the trough is being given something for nothing. Geez!
Chris: “That “long term strategy” included pulling out at the exact same time as Obama! Obama left on Bush’s timetable. You know this.”
The stupidity factor is beginning to grate. To say that Obama did what Bush would have done is to deny the entire posture of the Obama administration starting two years before taking office as he campaigned. It denies his calling Iraq a “dumb war”…diplomatic suicide! How do you negotiate (with authority and strength) for adequate troops levels to maintain stability and keep the peace after turning your back on a nation like that? How do you negotiate at all? Your position denies his changing the rules of engagement…his entire weak record of announcing limits and exit dates. There is NO WAY that these radicals would have been able to gain the strength they have had someone who took this thing seriously were in the oval office instead of Obama over the last six years.
“And then the totally rational folks at ISIS wouldn’t have ever dared to cross America”
Good Lord, Chris. this isn’t something that happens because of a single decision or announcement. Obama, and the American people that protested the war, bashed Bush, and voted Obama in, announced to the world that we would no longer represent much of a threat to terrorists. We might be a bit of a bother but in a kind of hands off way. That was their cue to ramp up big time. The arrogance factor on both sides figures in big time. Obama thought the sheer presence of a charismatic figure like him could talk peace into existence. Terrorists arrogantly believe it’s the will of Allah that they rule the world.
” Bush had a total of 13 Benghazis happen on his watch. Over 60 people died.”
The scandal isn’t the number of dead, although in this case it is tragic, the scandal is the lack of adequate readiness given the local dangers and the 911 anniversary, the failure of immediate response, the sloppy investigation and follow-up, and the attempt to cover up what happened! There are other questionable issues about what was going on there….arming our enemies. I doubt very seriously if any of the embassy bombings or whatever you have cited qualify in the same way.
“And that’s not taking into account the disastrous intelligence failures that led into 9/11 (oh wait, I forgot, that was entirely Clinton’s fault–the buck stops at the last guy when it’s convenient) and the Iraq War, each of which resulted in many more casualties.”
Try to learn the difference between responsibility and blame, responsibility and culpability.
NOBODY on the planet, except for the plotting terrorists, ever conceived of planes being flown into buildings. All chatter about hijacking planes was filed within the context of hostages and ransom. The wall was constructed. Bill Clinton did choose to treat the threat as criminal…which means you clean up after every event. After 911 all of that thinking changed…for everybody…until the Democrat Party chose to politicize the war and use it to defeat George Bush and the Republicans. they put party ahead of the safety of the nation, period:
The rise of ISIS is a direct result of the posture taken by this administration.
“Funny how you’re totally cool with America’s “nation-building,” unless it’s a Democrat leading the charge.”
Not so funny is the ignorance to think it is about party and politics rather than what worked to keep Americans safe from dangerous tyrannical threats!
We armed the Taliban so they could fight Russian aggression…your party would call it “occupation”. America, when it isn’t pretending to hold charismatic powers to impose peace and police the world, has always fought on the side of freedom and we have always sought to liberate peoples and nations!
Your ignorance is matched only by your naivete!
“…also by a suicide bomber who killed 12 people and injured 51 more — there was no additional security ordered to the compound. Now imagine the unhinged outrage that would’ve been generated if there had been not one but two similar attacks on the Benghazi consulate…”
My how you underestimate your party! Nobody sent someone in front of the cameras to claim a video was to blame. I’m sure there were other circumstances that were also not different. A bomb that kills is not quite the same as an attack that goes on for hours with no response. What was the reaction after it was discovered that extra security was requested? Do you even know? It certainly wasn;t to try to blame a video!
Moral equivalence is the name of your game, Chris, cover for the administration by attempting to show others have done the same thing. But others did not do the same thing.
After the many accusations, show trials, and head hunting hearings the left has conducted over the years these exception pleas are just ridiculous and humorous.
The Nixon trials and impeachment resulted in proper shaming of the party.
The one positive thing that could come of this would be that the left realized the damage done to our nation that follows Alinsky tactics, putting party politics above the nation and the people, refusing to responsibly respond to dangers, media protect one party over another and colluding in cover up. It’s a pipe dream that would change politics in America but it would require complete transformation of the Democrat Party faithful…not going to happen. This party has no shame…the end justifies the means.
Senate Votes 78-22 to Arm the Syrian Rebels:
“Yesterday, the House voted 273 to 156 to arm the Syrian rebels and then 319 to 108 to pass the Continuing Resolution so amended.
Harry Reid refused to split the vote into two separate ones, so the Senate only cast one vote: for the Continuing Resolution approved by the House, funding for deepening military involvement in Syria and all.
The Senate passed it 78 to 22.”
(See list for how senators voted.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/18/1330761/-Senate-Votes-78-22-to-Arm-the-Syrian-Rebels#
According to what I have heard from retired military officers on CNN and FOX they expect most of the weapons we send to the moderates will go straight to ISIS. I don’t know why they believe that, because all indications are ISIS already has plenty of weapons and plenty of money to buy more.
Currently I have no evidence to think arming alleged moderate Muslim rebels will help defeat ISIS or help us. History says eventually they all wind up hating us anyway.
If anyone has any info. they think might help me understand why sending guns to Muslims in Syria is a good idea I would like to read it.
Chris: “That “long term strategy” included pulling out at the exact same time as Obama! Obama left on Bush’s timetable. You know this.”
Like manna from heaven, this article dropped into my lap this morning. It chronicles the left’s activists anti-Bush campaign to lose the war a la Vietnam and includes this little item:
Obama didn’t follow through with the recommendations given him by the outgoing President.
The article is very informative as a look back on how the radical left lives to undermine. J. R. Dunn continues:
Whatever we do from here on out we should at least be willing to stay with it and win and then secure that win…otherwise it’s all a waste.
Tina: “Nobody sent someone in front of the cameras to claim a video was to blame.”
You’re right, nobody did this. Certainly not Obama. No one in the administration ever said that the video was “to blame.” They clearly said, on multiple occasions, that the terrorists who overreacted to the video were to blame.
They did say that the attackers were motivated by the video, because:
1. There were attacks motivated by the video in a dozen other Muslim cities that day
2. The CIA talking points said the attackers were motivated by the video
3. The attackers themselves said they were motivated by the video, according to numerous news reports.
You know all of this, but you will continue pretending not to know any of this, because you have a mental block preventing you from processing any information that doesn’t confirm your prejudices.
“I’m sure there were other circumstances that were also not different. A bomb that kills is not quite the same as an attack that goes on for hours with no response.”
It is a lie to say that there was “no response” in Benghazi. Please stop lying.
“What was the reaction after it was discovered that extra security was requested?”
I know you already know the answer to this, because you already quoted it. See what I mean? Mental. Block.
I’ll quote it again:
“On March 2, 2006 in Karachi, Pakistan, terrorists specifically targeted for assassination a U.S. diplomat named David Foy, so a terrorist suicide bomber hit the embassy, killing Foy and three others. In spite of the fact that the same embassy had been attacked two years earlier — also by a suicide bomber who killed 12 people and injured 51 more — there was no additional security ordered to the compound.”
“There is NO WAY that these radicals would have been able to gain the strength they have had someone who took this thing seriously were in the oval office instead of Obama over the last six years.”
Right, because Bush was totally able to stop Al Qaeda from gaining strength with his magical terrorist fighting superpowers.
And you call me naive!
Terrorists don’t care what kind of leader we have in the White House, Tina.
You’re also paying a lot more attention to what Obama says rather than what he does. He’s targeted terrorists more aggressively than even Bush. But because he doesn’t speak strongly enough in speeches, you perceive him as “weak on terror.”
It’s all so very dumb.
The video was NOT the cause of the Benghazi attack. There was no protest demonstrations.
13 Hours – Full Interview of the Three Benghazi Survivors:
From two of the Benghazi survivors.
Beginning at 6:00…”Normal day… Went out to meet some people for dinner. Normal night, normal dinner. There was nothing that looked different than any other day… Didn’t know about a video until I got to Germany.”
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=benghazi+attackers++not+motivated+by+video+13+hours&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=A9E08E3328B5FA3564F9A9E08E3328B5FA3564F9
Rice, Hillary, and Obama chose to say the video was the cause/motivation of the attack to cover their butts because the election (for Obama) was just around the corner…and because Hillary didn’t want a black spot on the record marring her chances at the presidency later. They conspired to deceive for their own personal gain.
The administration did not provide adequate security, they did not respond to obvious present dangers, they were not adequately prepared to respond to trouble, they botched the response, and they (purposely?) failed to adequately investigate after the fact. The purpose for this “outlet” may also be questionable.
This administrations entire approach to terrorist threats has been a disaster and put the entire world in greater danger.
You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see it.
The hypocrisy of the left, after all the crap they left gave Bush, is EPIC.
“…He’s targeted terrorists more aggressively than even Bush. But because he doesn’t speak strongly enough in speeches, you perceive him as “weak on terror.”
Please don’t imagine/assume you know what has gone into forming my opinion of either man and from my perspective you are flat out wrong.
Tina: “Rice, Hillary, and Obama chose to say the video was the cause/motivation of the attack to cover their butts because the election (for Obama) was just around the corner…and because Hillary didn’t want a black spot on the record marring her chances at the presidency later. They conspired to deceive for their own personal gain.”
If you are so convinced that this is true, Tina, then the least you can do is provide one shred of evidence for it. So far, you have utterly failed at doing so.
Also, you left out the CIA. Did they claim that the video was the motivation in order to provide cover for Obama too?
How about the terrorists who actually said they were motivated by the video? Were they part of the cover-up? Did the cover-up start before the attack even happened?
How about the captured attacker that said last summer that he was motivated by the video? Oh, I know! He said it to cover for Obama! Because terrorists love Obama! (It’s an abusive relationship what with all the drone strikes, but those terrorists just can’t help but go back to him!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=3
Here’s the problem, Tina: your explanation for why the administration said the video motivated the attackers doesn’t make any goddamn sense, and my explanation does. The rational, simple explanation is that the administration said that the attackers were motivated by the video because:
1) That’s what the CIA said
2) That’s what the terrorists said
3) That’s what motivated Islamist violence in dozens of other Muslim cities.
You and the rest of the Benghazi conspiracy theorist crowd would have us believe that Obama made up the video excuse out of whole cloth in order to help his election prospects. The holes in this theory are numerous:
1) The election was about the economy, not foreign policy, and Obama knew that, meaning he had no reason to try and cover anything up
2) If the Obama administration knew that the video wasn’t the motivating factor, they must have also known that this would be disproven within a matter of days, giving them absolutely no reason to cover anything up
3) Obama called the event an “act of terror” the day after it happened, meaning that he did not try to cover up the fact that it was a terrorist attack
4) Republicans tried desperately in the months leading up to the election to make Benghazi an election issue, throwing out false claim after false claim about cover-ups, and utterly failed. Obama is a savvy politician. Do you honestly think he believed Benghazi was going to hurt his election chances so much that he had to lie about it? Despite the fact that even with the aggressive promotion of the conspiracy theory, it STILL didn’t turn out to hurt his chances one bit?
Your “cover-up” theory exists independent of all available facts and common sense. You don’t even feel the need to back it up, and you are offended by the suggestion that you should have to; it is an article of faith, and you think you can magically make it true by sheer repetition.
You have failed.
Chris: “If you are so convinced that this is true, Tina, then the least you can do is provide one shred of evidence for it. So far, you have utterly failed at doing so.”
The evidence played out before our eyes in the public media. I have posted the statements refuting the ridiculous video story. I have posted the timeline. You choose not to believe the blatantly obvious. Okay by me but please don’t give me that “no shred of evidence” crap.
“Also, you left out the CIA. Did they claim that the video was the motivation in order to provide cover for Obama too?”
More likely Hillary.
“How about the terrorists who actually said they were motivated by the video?”
You mean the terrorists that a journalist found but the FBI and CIA couldn’t? You mean an enemy of America who would gladly agree that an American offended his religion and is therefore guilty? The hate America and vow to kill Americans terrorists? We should take his word over the word of those on the ground who saw no protesters?
“Here’s the problem, Tina: your explanation for why the administration said the video motivated the attackers doesn’t make any goddamn sense”
It makes a hell of a lot more sense than your continued support and defense of a lying, deceitful, administration.
“Your “cover-up” theory exists independent of all available facts and common sense.”
Only for those who choose to be willfully blind to the evidence from witnesses that tell a very different story.
I haven’t failed, Chris. It isn’t over. It is all part of history. This event will become part of the legacy for this administration along with affronts and failures too numerous to list.
THAT is what makes you so pissy.
There are people who deserve much better than this administration has given them, including the truth about what happened in Benghazi.
WATCH: Benghazi Survivors – Fox Interview
Benghazi: The Truth Behind the Smokescreen – Fox News
You might want to ask yourself why so much of the material presented in these reports, captured on You Tube, hasn’t been reported by most of the media in our nation.
There are plenty of intelligent, professional people who are very concerned about Benghazi and the administrations behavior before, during and after the event.
Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Benghazi Scandal Biggest Cover-up Since Watergate – Fox News
Bill Whittel: WHY BENGHAZI MATTERS
Those fabricating and distorting are the defenders of a failed administration.
If I can Tina add Sharyl Attkisson’s name as one of those who also has tried to tell the Benghazi and the Fast and Furious stories and resigned her job out of frustration.
Sharyl Attkisson leaves CBS News:
“Rumors of Attkisson’s stormy relations with her superiors at CBS News have made the rounds for months and months. In conversations from last year, CBS News sources told the Erik Wemple Blog that Attkisson, who came to the network from CNN two decades ago, was frustrated that more of her reporting on Benghazi and other investigative pieces didn’t make “The CBS Evening News” with greater frequency.
Attkisson herself didn’t help matters when she said on a Philadelphia radio show last May that her computers had been hacked, and she even went so far as to suggest that the intrusions could have had something to do with her work investigating the government. CBS News later confirmed breaches of her computer, though it never disclosed who had been responsible for them.
Politico reports that Attkisson is at work on a book titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington.” (Amazon.com reports that the book is due out in November.) On her Twitter feed, Attkisson has been prolific in highlighting the ways in which Obama administration officials have stymied her requests for information on the Benghazi attacks and other public matters.
According to a CBS News source, Attkisson felt that she was being kept off “The CBS Evening News” because of political considerations. In recent years, she has gone heavy on stories that cast the Obama administration in a bad light, including the failures of the Obamacare Web site, Benghazi and the “Operation Fast and Furious” gun interdiction program. Though much of Attkisson’s work on such stories failed to make the cut on “CBS Evening News,” it did surface on CBSNews.com, where Attkisson’s byline archive stands as something of a monument to her discontent as a TV reporter.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/03/10/sharyl-attkisson-leaves-cbs-news/
I just had “13 Hours” downloaded to my Kindle. Looking forward to reading what happened from our former service men who were Seals and Rangers and who were actually there before, during and after the attack.
Tina: “You mean the terrorists that a journalist found but the FBI and CIA couldn’t? You mean an enemy of America who would gladly agree that an American offended his religion and is therefore guilty? The hate America and vow to kill Americans terrorists? We should take his word over the word of those on the ground who saw no protesters?”
You are conflating two separate issues here, which is a common tactic for you.
The two issues are:
1) The video
2) The reported protests
The CIA (which you accuse of just covering for Hilary, again with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER) was wrong to conclude that there were protests prior to the attack. We now know that there were no protests, and the CIA made a mistake by initially concluding that there were. (Worth noting that this mistake was almost immediately corrected and had no long-term consequences, unlike the mistake that led us into the Iraq War–a mistake you mysteriously have no problem with.)
The CIA was, according to numerous people on the ground as well as the attackers themselves, NOT wrong that the attack was (at least in part) related to the attacks in Cairo and elsewhere, which were absolutely motivated by the video. They may have been wrong about the DEGREE to which the video played a role. But the attackers were very clear that the video is what motivated them. The CIA reported that accordingly, and then so did the White House.
That’s. Not. A. Cover-Up.
You desperately want it to be a cover-up because you will say and do anything to damage the presidency, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look. But if this administration is as bad as you say it is, you shouldn’t have to make things up.
Stick to ridiculing Obama for the things he deserves and I will be right with you! I have no interest in defending Obama from legitimate grievances. “You can keep your plan/doctor” was egregious. So is his hypocrisy and double talk on the Iraq War, and his aggressive campaign against whistleblowers. I only defend Obama when the accusations against him are ridiculous and contribute to the dumbing down of America.
You have still not presented any evidence of a cover-up. Your only retort to me pointing this out earlier amounted to nothing but a giant “NUH-UH, I TOTALLY HAVE, AND IF YOU CAN’T SEE IT IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE A BIG DUMMY.” That’s not evidence, Tina. It wouldn’t hold up in an eighth grade argumentative paper, and it certainly doesn’t hold up coming from an adult who claims to be well informed.
Do better.
Peggy thanks for adding Sharyl Attkisson to our list. I posted her first Fast and Furious article weeks before the story finally made it to the main stream news. It was shortly after that initial investigation that she began having trouble with the CBS network.
She is a tireless journalist of the old time variety that pulls all the threads till the truth comes out.
Chris: “You are conflating two separate issues here…1) The video 2) The reported protests”
No Chris I am simply responding to your ridiculous explanation which takes news from Cairo and attempts to transplant it in Benghazi. Birds of a feather! Hillary and Obama made the same silly leap, thinking we would buy their lies. Sycophants like you did. They CHOSE to ignore the information that there were no protesters in Benghazi and ran with a cover story to take them through the election…they chose the narrative that would politically benefit them rather than being truthful with the American people.
Freedom Outpost:
“We now know that there were no protests, and the CIA made a mistake by initially concluding that there were.”
Sorry Chris. That information was known immediately:
Susan Rice on three major Sunday talk shows:
Why not just say we have to wait to see what the FBI discovers? Or if they wanted to be forthcoming why not tell us that there were differing reports. If the point wasn’t to cover up a terrorist why not tell us what they were being told. Or…why send Rice to the shows at all? This carefully scripted show had a purpose that benefited ONLY two people…Obama and Hillary.
“That’s not evidence, Tina. It wouldn’t hold up in an eighth grade argumentative paper…”
You seem to forget that many of the people that have looked into this and that have reported on it have a hell of a lot more expertise than YOU have in matters pertaining to the law and specifically cover-up.
You choose to ignore or dismiss evidence that doesn’t fit your pat excuses, Chris. Little periods between your words, speaking of the eighth grade, do not change the behaviors of those involved or the weenie words they carefully crafted (Eight revisions? Please!!!) to cover for their egregious failures and prevent scandal prior to the election.
The bummer man was running on a platform that had al Qaeda on the run and terrorism all but smashed, remember…he couldn’t let a few deaths spoil his chances to screw u for four more years!
“Do better.”
Stop with the airs of superiority…you’re stinkin’ up the place!
Tina: “There are plenty of intelligent, professional people who are very concerned about Benghazi…
Judge Jeanine Pirro…Bill Whittel…”
LOLOLOLOL
“Sharyl Attkisson…is a tireless journalist of the old time variety…”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
http://www.mediaite.com/online/cbs-news-sharyl-attkisson-also-presented-invented-benghazi-emails-as-authentic/
Tina: “No Chris I am simply responding to your ridiculous explanation which takes news from Cairo and attempts to transplant it in Benghazi. Birds of a feather! Hillary and Obama made the same silly leap”
No, the CIA made that leap. You seem incapable of mentally processing this information. Seek help.
“differing reports”
So you ARE aware of the concept! Thanks for disproving your own claim that the Obama administration “lied” or engaged in a “cover-up.”
By your own admission, the administration simply chose to rely on one set of reports over the other. The Senate report justly criticized them for this, since that report was wrong. But that is not a cover-up. That is routine. And, again: it had no real-world consequences. Unlike the mistake of relying on a set of reports detailing WMDs in Iraq when there was conflicting information. The Bush administration didn’t wait to find out which set of reports was correct–they made a decision that was wrong, and ultimately cost the lives of thousands of people.
And you think the biggest government scandal since the crucifixion is a person getting a detail wrong on a Sunday talk show, and then admitting they were wrong a couple weeks later?
This deserves nothing but mockery.
“If the point wasn’t to cover up a terrorist why not tell us what they were being told.”
If it WAS “to cover up a terrorist,” why call it an act of terror the day after it happened? That doesn’t make any sense.
“This carefully scripted show had a purpose that benefited ONLY two people…Obama and Hillary.”
It benefitted NO ONE! And if the Obama administration actually knew it wasn’t true, then they would have KNOWN it benefited no one. They would have known that the protest thing would be almost immediately discredited and they would look like they jumped the gun. (The video thing was never truly discredited–the terrorists cited it as their motivation, so Rice’s statements about the video were accurate.) And again, the election had little to do with foreign policy. It had to do with the economy. Why on EARTH would Hilary or Obama think lying about the attack would benefit them?
They wouldn’t.
“By your own admission, the administration simply chose to rely on one set of reports over the other.”
Congrats Chris! You are definitely a member in good standing now in the party of deceit and lies…the ends justifies the means…whatever it takes. It isn’t that you can’t tell the difference between cherry picking the facts to create narrative and simply telling the truth…its that you don’t care about the truth…you care about advancing the liberal cause.
Rice’s remarks were contrived!
“They wouldn’t.”
Right, because neither one of them has ever shown himself to be a conniving political animal. (Keep your doctor…save $2700). (I don’t recall…oops we found them in the map room) Neither has demonstrated to the world that they will do anything to further their ideology and cause…not to mention themselves!
Man, are you politically dumb!
Tina: “Right, because neither one of them has ever shown himself to be a conniving political animal.”
Again, your conspiracy theory makes no sense precisely because they are both conniving political animals. I’m not saying they don’t lie. I am saying that in this case, there was no need for them to lie, and no evidence that they did lie. They chose to rely on one set of reports rather than another, because they genuinely thought that the first set of reports which said there was a protest was more reliable. They admitted their small error (about whether there was a protest) over a month before the election. Sane people with a sense of proportion moved on with their lives. The GOP tried to make it worse than Watergate.