38 replies to this topic

[Merc14]

We lost an ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi and for 8 days the Obama administration denied it was a terrorist attack. They blamed it on a video that, literally, no one had ever seen.  By flaunting this fictional evil video for 8 days they incited riots in 20 other Muslim countries.  All this to cover up for the fact that Obama was preaching Al Qaeda was destroyed on his watch when in fact his ham-fisted policy of oblterating the leaders from drones, rather than capturing the b******* and interrogating them, had led to a resurgence of Al Qaeda hroughout he midde east and N. Africa.

This chicanery  culminated in a coordinated September 11th attack on our embassy in Libya which resulted in the  torture and murder of our Ambassador and three others.  Even the press is pissed off on this one since, as usual, they echoed the administration's myth that it was about a video on youtube.  The press has finally been humiliated enough to actually start asking hard questions of these criminals



That is ABC!  ABC!!  All But Communist network questioning the regime?!  They'll get back on the plantation, no doubt, but finally the zealots are doing their job, even if it is just for a day or two. They are doing their job because they have been as humiliated and abused as the wife of a serial adulterer.  Oh yeah, that would describe our Secretary of State.  Sorry!!

This is big and the MSM can't back off it even if they want to so close to the election.  They can't protect Hillary and Barry as there are too many other outlets pushing this story of corruption, hubris and ignorance.

Just a lead in to the next month.  Hillary is done politically so find someone else for 2016 dems.


More to come.

Edited by Merc14, 11 October 2012 - 04:46 AM.

[Jeremiah65]

On one hand, I agree with you.  Not expecting "something" on 9-11 was pretty bold.  Then trying to sweep it into the "pissed off at a movie" crowd was even worse.  It was evident pretty early to me that it was not the same thing that happened in Cairo.  Much to coordinated, too much firepower for an "angry mob".

That being said, Libya was not "our failure" (unless you just mean the attack on the embassy).  We were part of a NATO mission, we did not initiate the offensive.  We just sat back and fired 60 tomahawks a day into Libya at a cool $800,000 to 1,000,000 each.  Nice, eh?

[Merc14]

Jeremiah65, on 11 October 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

On one hand, I agree with you.  Not expecting "something" on 9-11 was pretty bold.  Then trying to sweep it into the "pissed off at a movie" crowd was even worse.  It was evident pretty early to me that it was not the same thing that happened in Cairo.  Much to coordinated, too much firepower for an "angry mob".

That being said, Libya was not "our failure" (unless you just mean the attack on the embassy).  We were part of a NATO mission, we did not initiate the offensive.  We just sat back and fired 60 tomahawks a day into Libya at a cool $800,000 to 1,000,000 each.  Nice, eh?

I hate to think of the US as just "part of a NATO mission",  I have been involved in those missions and the US is pretty much NATO so...  Not to say you are wrong, I have heard that Obama bows to NATO pressure re. leadership.


That said, I am far more upset at States refusal to scale up the security in a nightmare country for who knows what reason and then the absolutely absurd coverup following the murder of our ambassador!  We didn't even send an investigative team there for ten day!  CNN picked up the Ambassador's notes off the floor!

Edited by Merc14, 11 October 2012 - 05:03 AM.

[and then]

Merc14, on 11 October 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

I hate to think of the US as just "part of a NATO mission",  I have been involved in those missions and the US is pretty much NATO so...  Not to say you are wrong, I have heard that Obama bows to NATO pressure re. leadership.


That said, I am far more upset at States refusal to scale up the security in a nightmare country for who knows what reason and then the absolutely absurd coverup following the murder of our ambassador!  We didn't even send an investigative team there for ten day!  CNN picked up the Ambassador's notes off the floor!

I think SecState should resign along with Susan Rice.  I'll not be holding my breath, however.

[lightly]

I think the "Revolutions" in Libya and Syria  are U.S./nato sponsored  coups  to rearrange those governments
into configurations more compliant to  western interests.   In other words... its mostly about the oil  AGAIN!

There was an interim government in waiting in the wings in Libya before Omar was killed.

...  what better way to gain public support in the U.S.  than by the death of the U.S. ambassador ?

[Merc14]

lightly, on 11 October 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I think the "Revolutions" in Libya and Syria  are U.S./nato sponsored  coups  to rearrange those governments
into configurations more compliant to  western interests.   In other words... its mostly about the oil  AGAIN!

There was an interim government in waiting in the wings in Libya before Omar was killed.

...  what better way to gain public support in the U.S.  than by the death of the U.S. ambassador ?

There is no doubt that Libya was about oil.  France and Spain are especially dependent on Libyan oil and NATOs intervention was to stabilize the oil situation.  Syria isn't a major oil producing nation I don't think but are in that area so...

[Tiggs]

Merc14, on 11 October 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

All this to cover up for the fact that Obama was preaching Al Qaeda was destroyed on his watch

Are you sure that's a fact?

Evidence, please.

[Merc14]

Tiggs, on 11 October 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Are you sure that's a fact?

Evidence, please.

Touching a sore nerve here Tiggs?  Why do you think he pushed the stupid YouTube video for so long?  You rbest gues as no one has evidence or knows why they lied so long but the central characters.

Do you think that Clinton's and Obama's neverending litany on that anti-prophet movie provoked the violence in so many other countries in the days after the attack?  I certainly do.

[supervike]

Unfortunately, the 'outrage' at the security failure, only goes as far words.  This is a political ploy.

http://www.sltrib.co...mittee.html.csp

Here we have Utah Rep. Chaffetz claiming


"Chaffetz appeared on several networks and in news stories, charging that the Obama administration had turned down requests for enhanced safety measures at the Benghazi U.S. consulate, where Stevens and a small security detail were killed in a mortar attack."

Then the same man has the gall to make this statement.

Later in the interview, CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien asks, “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”
Chaffetz answers, “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”


Actions speak louder than words.  The Republicans in this case want it both ways.  Vote to cut funding, then act outraged that the security wasn't there.

What is the real goal?  This is all politically motivated.
http://cnnpressroom....bassy-security/

[hacktorp]

Quote

This chicanery  culminated in a coordinated September 11th attack on our embassy in Libya

The installation in Benghazi has been variously described as an embassy, a consulate, and a stationhouse.  Which is it?  As information continues to seep out about this, it's looking more like an attack on a CIA base of operations:

http://www.washingto...b2a7_story.html

If true, expect this story to start losing traction.

[Tiggs]

Merc14, on 11 October 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Touching a sore nerve here Tiggs?

Hardly.

I'm asking you to establish that Obama "was preaching Al Qaeda was destroyed on his watch", as you've claimed that it's the key motive and also that it's factual.

I'm not aware of him ever saying that. Which is why I'd like to see it, in order to evaluate how likely your OP is.

[Corp]

lightly, on 11 October 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I think the "Revolutions" in Libya and Syria  are U.S./nato sponsored  coups  to rearrange those governments
into configurations more compliant to  western interests.   In other words... its mostly about the oil  AGAIN!

There was an interim government in waiting in the wings in Libya before Omar was killed.

...  what better way to gain public support in the U.S.  than by the death of the U.S. ambassador ?

People in other countries protesting and rising up against violent dictators? Unthinkable! It must be an evil Western plot to get something that they were already getting in the first place.


Anyway on topic there was a security breakdown and it should be looked into. If it's found that someone screwed up they should be punished. But complete and utter failure? I think personal politics is coming into play here.

[Merc14]

Absolutely must-see TV to educate yourself on the cover-up

[Merc14]

Tiggs, on 11 October 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Hardly.

I'm asking you to establish that Obama "was preaching Al Qaeda was destroyed on his watch", as you've claimed that it's the key motive and also that it's factual.

I'm not aware of him ever saying that. Which is why I'd like to see it, in order to evaluate how likely your OP is.

Onama declares AL Qaeda on its heels just weeks after they attacked us in force, in Benghazi.  I beg to differ Barry, they are alive and well.

http://www.weeklysta...cks_654000.html

In my lexicon on its heels means beaten and done, we are mopping up.

Edited by Merc14, 11 October 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[Tiggs]

Merc14, on 11 October 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

In my lexicon on its heels means beaten and done, we are mopping up.

In everyone else's - it means in retreat.