Benghazi - emails expose Obama's "it was the video" lie

[swampy]

There ya go again Uncle Wig, playing the race card. Yawn....

[August West]

Gotta love the hard intelligence that swampster believes the President was hiding.

swampy's link wrote:
Then, at 6:07 p.m., State sent out another alert saying the embassy in Tripoli reported the Islamic military group "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack"... "on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.

[john dough]

swampy wrote:
There ya go again Uncle Wig, playing the race card. Yawn....

You are a real piece of work.

[cbelt3]

swampy, I'm afraid this issue really doesn't have much traction, despite attemps to make it 'Libyagate'. Here are the basic facts:

Libya was a country in revolution. It's NOT stable. Weapons are everywhere. Anti-American Al Quaeda activity is very high. It's a 'moral equivalant of combat' posting for State Dept staff.

Everyone knew that. But you can't protect an embassy against a military-class mass attack like it saw. You just can't.

Nobody was surprised when the embassies were hit, and people died. Well, except the media, who seems to be surprised by everything. Ooh ! Squirrel !

No reasonable person should be surprised at a reasonably confused public reaction to the unfolding crisis. This ain't a Tom Clancy novel. It's real life.

I *will* point out to the assembled Democratic Party Faithful that when Romney utters something that is not perfectly true, you guys run around screaming "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire !". But when YOUR guy muffs it, the person who points out "Hey.. that wasn't true" gets attacked.

[$tevie]

swampy wrote:
$tevie, I'm glad to know that you feel it's okay for the president to lie to us on this. A lying President is a big issue to me and especially to the families of those who died and to our troops who must follow his orders.

Then you must have been spitting nails while W was President.

[$tevie]

cbelt3 wrote: I *will* point out to the assembled Democratic Party Faithful that when Romney utters something that is not perfectly true, you guys run around screaming "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire !". But when YOUR guy muffs it, the person who points out "Hey.. that wasn't true" gets attacked.

Show me a lie which Romney had to put out at a moment's notice and we'll talk. Romney's mendacity cannot be compared to current event press briefings.

[Lemon Drop]

cbelt3 wrote:


Libya was a country in revolution. It's NOT stable. Weapons are everywhere. Anti-American Al Quaeda activity is very high. It's a 'moral equivalant of combat' posting for State Dept staff.
.

excellent point cbelt - also important to remember that Amb. Stevens throughout his distinguished diplomatic career rejected some of the security measures that were recommended for him because he wanted fewer obstacles between himself and the people with whom he hoped to negotiate and make peace. He certainly knew that serving in Libya and traveling to less secure places like Benghazi was very risky, and he undertook that risk with the goal of service to his country.
All the more reason that attempts to politicize his death and use it to score points against the President who assigned him to that dangerous task are offensive.

[Lemon Drop]

cbelt3 wrote:

I *will* point out to the assembled Democratic Party Faithful that when Romney utters something that is not perfectly true, you guys run around screaming "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire !". But when YOUR guy muffs it, the person who points out "Hey.. that wasn't true" gets attacked.

If you're talking about Benghazi, "our guy" has not "muffed it."

[$tevie]

There were two administration failures around Benghazi: a failure to provide adequate security at the consulate, and a failure to provide a consistent explanation for what had happened on September 11 as the facts emerged. But these failures do not add up to the grand conspiracy of fecklessness and cover-up that Republicans have sought to portray, and that furrow-browed coverage of the attacks has suggested. For one thing, there is the matter of scale: horrific as the attacks were, and unusual as the killing of an ambassador is, one cannot help but wonder how much attention the deaths of these four Americans would be getting if they were not occurring during a relatively quiet (or quiescent) time for Americans abroad—if, say, they had occurred amid the persistent, large-scale loss of American life in Iraq in the middle of the last decade. Second, the dudgeon over the attacks overlooks important context, namely that Libya remains, despite that day's horror, a relatively bright spot for the U.S. in the Arab world. Where else have we seen large pro-American demonstrations of the sort that took place after the attacks?

Then there are the mitigating arguments on each of the two failures identified above. Yes, security in Benghazi was inadequate. But Republican attempts to capitalize on this, and to cast Stevens as the victim of administration incompetence on this score, overlook a) the fact that the unfulfilled request for added security was for the embassy in Tripoli, not the Benghazi consulate and b) the inconvenient reality that Stevens was among those diplomats who believed in erring on the side of openness and risk, rather than on the side of fortress-like security.
...
I haven't really heard everyone talking about Benghazi the past few days (have you?) Such echo-chamber spin may convince Romney that he should take one more swing at this. But Saturday also brought the news, from Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin, that the document dump by Darrell Issa, the House Republican who oversaw a committee hearing on the attacks last week, had compromised the identities of Libyans working with the U.S. That is, that Republican opportunism has come at a real cost for people far beyond the realm of campaign trail gamesmanship.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/108951/has-the-b...its-course

[swampy]

At 6:07 PM on 9/11/12 the CIAs email said

" Ansar al- Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack....embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

THAT report has not been disputed. It has been verified by other intelligence agencies and agents who were watching live feeds of the attack and who were monitoring "chatter" from known terrorist groups.

Obama's "no acts of terror" speech made no direct reference to Benghazi, but even if you assume that is what he was talking about, WHY was the Obama team's video story the one that was promoted for weeks after the attack?
And why is it that the only ones pushing the video story were members of the WH team? Even the press was not touting that story (except perhaps MSNBC).

You supposed intelligent and open minded liberals here do not even question what is going on. You still buy Obama's video lie. I'm disappointed that you accept everything Obama says as true. Did you fact check the BS he put out during the last debate? Probably not.

Within hours of the 9/11/01 attack on the twin towers, there were pretty solid reports that Bin Lauden was behind it. Except for the conspiracy theory nuts, these early reports proved true. At least with Bush, the story never changed.