WH Emailed YouTube during Benghazi attack instead of sending help

I fixed your post for you. Now it reads as history actually was.

 

Hindsight is wonderful.

From the CIA.

The CIA forces sent in weren't there to stop the fighting.

 

Wrong, it indicates that the White House and State Department may have believed that the attacks were connected to the anti-Islamic video, but it PROVES that the White House and State Department violated their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic by attacking Freedom of Speech instead of the threat against it.

The principle of “consent of the governed,” which is the foundation of our nation from the Declaration of Independence, cannot exist if we the people do not have the right of such speech protected.

The right to denigrate (to utterly blacken, to defame) a false prophet or a god or belief, to blaspheme, is the very core of religious freedom, for without it Jesus himself could not have claimed the Pharisees father was the devil:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

Likewise we wind up with this:

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

“Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton) http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

Contents:

“[Elder Woman] Source: LYBIO.net
My age has exceeded 120 years and in all my young life ‘I haven’t seen such a murderous thug as Muhammad’. He kills men, captures women and children, robs the caravans, breaches agreements and treaties. He sells the children as slaves after he and his men have used them. And what’s more, he does this all in the name of God. What God is this? That he’s such an oppressor and so unfair to the people.” http://lybio.net/tag/innocence-of-muslims-muhammad-movie-transcription/

Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids

(3) Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha: On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'." (Book #15, Hadith #103)


"(3) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (Book #62, Hadith #137)"

RIGHT there we see the impotence of #bringbackourgirls, but see Boko Haram doing what MoHamMad supported.

“The Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad (Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad),[2][3] known by its Hausa name Boko Haram (pronounced [bōːkòː hàrâm]; figuratively meaning ‘Western education is sin’” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” (Washington's Farewell Address 1796) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

When John Kerry supported the ICC (Rome treaty) he did so only wanting some protections from politically motivated prosecutions, which would violate the “consent of the governed.” Our veto at the United Nations (of tyrants too) retains our “consent of the governed,” but only some protections from politically motivated prosecutions at the ICC would violate it. So it is no surprise to me that he is now Secretary of State.

“Defamation of religion is an issue that has been repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) since 1999. Several non-binding resolutions have been voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion." The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,[1] aim to prohibit expression that would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences." Religious groups, human rights activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West have condemned the resolutions arguing it amounts to an international blasphemy law.[2] Critics of the resolutions including human rights groups argue that they are used to politically strengthen domestic anti-blasphemy and religious defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations


In the case of the Obama and Clinton they displayed cowardice in the face of the enemy (of freedom of speech and Western education), or it simply indicates they are traitors; The Democratic Party defending their actions is proof the Democratic Party is the Party of Treason.

 

Yes. How was the poor White House to know that nothing happened when....in fact, nothing happened?
The fact is a random collection of Muslim street crazies did not and could not magically morph into a well armed, well functioning paramilitary army. The White House and all the generals in the Pentagon did not know this? Everyone, who is even slightly honest, knows.

The CIA gave the White House what it wanted...cover. And the White House can say, disingenuously, How were we to know? That's what the intelligence told us. but within ten days the White House had to admit to the obvious.
Such a lie is too easy to see through.

It's hard to stop anything when you aren't around.

 

You really need to let it go and get yourself back on topic.

 

We have been all through this before. We are attacked because of “protracted blockade” in a 1998 fatwa of war against us and the liberal Supreme Court says the war didn’t start until Bush started it in 2001. The authorization expects all resolutions to be complied with, which included not supporting terrorism, the offender supports terrorism, and the liberal says a suicide bomber blowing up a bus is not terrorism, but is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-bag on a bus. The Jihadist says, “Jihad,” and means war, but the liberal says he is not a Jihadist. Purifying one’s community like a pair of bellows is not genocide, just ask John Brennan, it’s a legitimate tenet of Islam. The White House and State Department blame Freedom of Speech for the attack against us and the liberal claims that is right thing to do. Logically, based upon liberal illogic we should just call up the Press next time someone does something--the KKK because of a black president, a religious fanatic that doesn’t like gay marriage--and just tell them to take down the offending thing.

The easiest way to take down liberals is just to do to them what they approve of with regard to the video in question; liberals and Democrats offend someone, let’s just ban them too, we can quote MoHamMad on it ("Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good") it is just purifying the community; they can’t complain, when they are banned, it is their logic and approved social contract.

If anyone does miss them, we’ll just borrow from Pardy and say it was a prudent action.

 

Off topic.

 

The October 2002 joint resolution giving Bush authorization to use force was passed 6 months before Bush and his RW administration decided to invade and occupy. The resolution was not a vote to invade or "go to war" but gave the Bush administration authority to use force if diplomacy failed. Whether diplomacy failed and what force to use were decisions made by the Bush administration.

Ever since that "mistaken" war turned out to be a disaster, conservatives have been trying mightily to claim that Dems "voted for war", for obvious reasons. But that is a RW propaganda fabrication of history. There was no vote for war.

As I said, the Dems who voted to give Bush authority made a mistake trusting him. But hindsight is easy.

 

Not following are you? Not a surprise given your track record.

The issue here is that the request to youtube predates the CIA's prepared talking points. Since they hadn't got the CIA's inlet yet there is no way that the CIA was the source of the youtube story because the intel did not yet exist.

 

You do realize that Obamacare is likely going to cost the Democrats the Senate don't you? There are certainly more than a few Democrat senators who are very worried about that possibility. Or are you even more of a hardcore thrill-up-the-leg-boy than Chris Mathews?

And feel free to explain what the Democrats have done that "pretty soon" will revitalize the economy. Were you not aware that more Americans, of working age, are not in the workforce than at any time in history? My guess is that your political ignorance is so profound that you aren't even aware of how utterly worthless the U3 even is. Hell, you probably don't even know what the U3 is. And I know, you will look it up and then pretend otherwise, but your absurd "pretty soon" statement has already revealed that you know nothing.

 

The 0.1% economic growth, blamed by global warmists on cold weather, while Russia saw nearly 1.0% growth in the middle of sanctions... it doesn't bode well for the Democrats. A French-like economy may be our new normal and I don't think Americans are going to accept that.

 

How's that austerity working out for you?

All according to plan:

Step 1: Obstruct and use control of the House to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the economy. E.g. Create as much uncertainty as possible by threatening to cause the US to shut down the government, default on its obligations, and wreck the economy. Add 700,000+ people to the unemployment lines by eliminating government jobs. Block every single proposal by the President to create jobs. Force austerity cuts in Govt spending to prevent or limit economic growth.


Step 2: Blaaaaame Obaaaaaamaaaaaa and count on the sheeple simply blaming whoever is president.

 

Seriously? Since when has Obama or France pushed austerity? The UK pushed austerity and corporate tax breaks and they are the best in the west at the moment. You have failed to grasp reality here.

The drop in our economic growth in the US has clearly correlated with Obama's tax hike and expansion of government services into the private sector, just as France's issues correlate with the policies of their ruling (for now) socialist party.

 

I told Democrats before it was signed into law, and so did Robert Bird (“blank check&#8221:

“It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ‘'is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.’''
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/opinion/congress-must-resist-the-rush-to-war.html

Stop lying. History does not support your LIES.

 

Mistake? No.... Not a mistake. Bush gave them another vote, after the fact, and the democrats all supported it. They all supported the removal of saddam hussein from power, even Hillary Clinton said it was in the long term interest of Americas national security.

Lets take a look....
[video=youtube;Cwqh4wQPoQk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk[/video]

[video=youtube;DkS9y5t0tR0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0[/video]

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

Obama didn't, the Tea Party Republicans do.

Austerity:

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

Not austerity:

Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Not austerity:

Bush
Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7%
Total government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/publication/45067
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

You have failed to grasp reality here.

 

Just pointing out that the first link here doesn't work and the second doesn't lead to any data.

 

Thanks, CBO changes the links on occasion when they update data.

Here's the new link: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx

The link to employment data is BLS's (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data portal. To get total Govt employment, select the "Government" box (10th from the bottom) in the right hand column, then click the "Retrieve data" button at the bottom, and it generates a table with the raw data.

 

I'm not seeing a right hand column anywhere. It talks about debt as GDP which appears to have gone up under Obama.

 

You're mixing up your links. That is the link to the expenditure data.

The link to the employment data is http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

 

Baloney. Not many people in your base know the difference between debt and deficit, but they can spot a homo at 400 yards blindfolded.

 

Ok, I did that but I have no idea how to read this data.

It says things like: Janury 2004, 21538. January 2014, 21832. So I see an increase of roughly 300 from Bush to Obama. Though what increased I'm not really sure.

 

Jesus fricking christ Ireomon. You run around derailing this thread for pages complaining about off-topic and now you post stuff on teh budget.

REPORTED!!!!

 

No, I didn't start the discussion on the economy; it was going on for several pages before I posted.