Unanswered Questions About Benghazi

How can an argument that Faux News and right wingers IGNORED the deaths of Americans in foreign countries at embassies/counsulates under Bush's watch...be "beaten down"??? Were they killed or weren't they? How does the passage of time change facts?

As I stated in an earlier post on this thread...the Benghazi conspracy nuts are the ones that refuse to accept the fact that here is no there...there.

 

Are you serious?! I literally just explained it. EVERYONE understands people want to attack us and they do so all the time. Between Bush and Obama, Obama is the only one that tried to lie about it. Perhaps you could cite which one of your attacks under Bush, Bush tried to blame on a youtube video. Your peppermint is a bit twisted. Or Perhaps you could tell us what Obama actually did that night without guessing. Whats your theory as to why Obama absolutely refuses to tell the American people what really happened that night. He wont tell us because he is hiding something.
And for the record I think Bush was an idiot.
Also for the record no one "right wingers" included ignored the deaths of anyone. We are the ones trying to strengthen our military and secure our border, you lefties are working your butts off to do the opposite. Now we are back to dealing with Russia because our President has neutered his own country with support of his voting base which are the dumbest people to ever have walked the face of the earth.

 

You are clearly totally partisan and will never accept the facts of what happened unless it comes from the pie hole of Darrell "Inspector Clouseau" Issa and the like-minded loons and partisan hacks on Fox...

...and yet, still, no one on the right even acknowledges the deaths to Americans under Dubya's watch. Par for the course.

 

What facts? Obama has yet to give them to us.
No ones acknowledging the deaths under Bush because weve already acknowledged them and the entire country knows exactly what happened. Still waiting for Obama to tell us. The only partisan here is you. Failing to cede Obama refuses to tell us what happened. Pathetic.

 

Guess you didn't read the senate report, nor any of the continuing congressional hearings. Never mind, keeping up would ruin the outrage.

 

What did I say that the Senate report contradicts? Someone came to help them? There weren't probing attacks throughout the night as our DCM Hicks said? They didn't have to wait on a chartered Libyan plane that wouldn't depart till dawn? Why don't you tell me which part of my post was incorrect?

 

But she didn't lie.
She qualified her remarks, but I suppose this literary concept is beyond some people's comprehension.

How many times did Obama take a crap? What did he eat that night? Maybe he was high? Or with a hooker? Or just told everyone to leave him alone.

The very fact that for some inane partisan reason that you would think that POTUS would be so derelict in his duty as to ignore such an event, particularly given his track record of icing terrorists with regularity is nothing but the lame attempts of partisans to elevate a tragic event to the level of national scandal.

 

These lefties who want to forget Benghazi are probably the same zealots who wanted to get to the bottom of the Valerie Plame "scandal" and screaming for heads to roll. HYPOCRITES! But that's the advantage to having the dominant liberal mass media on your side.

 

Didn't say he ignored it. He effed it up. And when people eff things up they typically need to explain what happened and why. IS there a reason you are flailing at telling us what decisions he made and why? and who he gave orders to? and what they were? All softball questions. Stop flailing your arms and swim.
And please stop with the strawman, none of us ever asked how many craps he took or what he ate or if he was high or with a hooker but it is an interesting observation that you came up with those first. That's called a Freudian Slip.

 

But he didn't screw it up and there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest he did so.

I suppose there are those that think that sending in a seal team or two without proper intell, (i.e. not a clue what was actually going on on the ground), or perhaps sending in a non-existent drone to what? take pictures, fire off a hellfire or two at human shapes on the ground?, or mounting an invasion in a matter of a few hours were viable options. Nothing like creating an even bigger clustermuck, but hey, there seems to be a fairly extensive track record of America doing exactly that.

 

uhhh four people died when they didn't have to. And yes there is evidence. Ill illustrate it for you.
What time did the attack begin?
When did the last American die?
Why was the military incapable of saving these people given the timeframe?
What Orders did Obama give during this time frame? Who did he give them to? and what were those orders?
Prediction: You probably wont even answer the first two questions with valid answers. You definitely wont answer the last four because Obama has not given us the information. Evidence he is attempting to cover his tracks. He lawyered up....again.

 

Why don't you read the senate report? Why don't you read the testimony before the congressional committee?

I'm betting you won't since it will totally ruin a perfectly good partisan conspiracy theory.

 

Reports are surfacing about emails from senior WH officials that the strategy going forward was NOT the search for truth and justice for those responsible for the attack. No, it was all politics, let's do all we can to make the president look good. I mean, take a step back - Americans were attacked and killed, including a US Ambassador, but the WH focus was on how the president might be affected negatively. I just don't know how anyone can defend that.


" Key communication chiefs at the White House waged an all-out strategy to rally behind President Obama and help him push the mantra that the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. facility in Benghazi were due to an Internet video — and not policy failure, a watchdog just revealed.
Key to the messaging: Making sure the president appeared strong in the face of adversity, the nonprofit Judicial Watch found, in a recently received FOIA request.
Judicial Watch found — after sifting through documents that were requested from the Department of State on June 21, 2013 — an email from Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, that showed he joined with others to devise a public relations campaign to “reinforce” Mr. Obama’s statements that an anti-Islam video spurred the attacks.

The main point of the White House team’s strategy was to paint the terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video and not a failure of policy,” Judicial Watch said in an emailed release. Meanwhile, the State Department — at the same time that message was being shaped — initially considered the incident simply an “attack,” and perhaps even a kidnap try, the watchdog said.

The email from Mr. Rhodes, dated Sept. 14, 2012, read in part: “Goal: … To underscore that these protests are rooted in [an] Internet video and not a broader failure or policy.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-looked-good-was-post-benghazi/#ixzz30IealP6p

 

Faux News and the right wing are way past beating that dead horse...they are now picking over the decomposing/decomposed carcass. Pathetic and hilarious all at the same time.

 

We had a couple pilots shot down over Benghazi just a year before. From http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-fighter-jet-crashes-benghazi/story?id=13191505 :

The pilot was picked up by a Marine search and rescue from the ship. The team launched its standard TRAP Mission (Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel), sending two Ospreys, two CH-53E helicopters and two Harrier jets. The Harrier jets launched first to patrol the skies over the downed pilot and the helicopters carried 35 marines to serve as perimeter protection if needed.

They sent 2 Ospreys, 2 CH-53's, and 2 Harriers to rescue 2 people. We had dozens holed up in Benghazi who were being attacked all night long, who had to wait on a chartered Libyan plane. Ridiculous.

 

Ah, so you think that the US armed forces would maintain the same combat readiness while combat operations were being conducted as when there wasn't? What other unrealistic expectations do you harbor?

 

Wow, you wanna send people into harm's way if they ain't combat ready? What difference does it make if combat operations are being conducted, you better be sending people who know what they're doing, to do otherwise is REALLY unrealistic. And really stupid.

 

I expect aircraft to take off of whatever airfield those drones departed from to go assist. Fighters and evac aircraft move faster than our drone aircraft. We got two drones there. We got a logic problem here. Am I supposed to believe those drones took of from an otherwise empty airfield? We got an airfield with just 2 drones parked on it? I don't think so.

 

I agree.

OTOH, attempting to equate combat readiness in patrol duties with combat operations in combat, would be really unrealistic and really stupid.

 

And saying that we shouldn't have had fighter and evac aircraft there, and if not there, at least orbiting 12 miles off the coast, is really stupid. We could have got planes there, and everyone knows it, and it sickens me to even have to have this conversation.

 

Only because you dont think there is anything wrong with the President lying to the people in order to get more votes.

 

What dead horse? Just yesterday, documents were provided that were requested nearly a year ago, that directly contradict the administrations story. They lied, you just dont care that they did.

 

Well then, I suggest you take it up with the military command as to their routine deployment decisions and why resources were not immediately at hand to respond.

Of course fighters couldn't do much at night except bomb specific areas without the slightest clue as to what was transpiring on the ground or who the bad guys were.

And as for evac aircraft being ready, why would they be? On the if come? Would you send evac choppers into a live fire area where there was no intell as to what was actually transpiring on the ground and who the bad guys were?
After all, Its a lot easier to shoot down a chopper full of evacuees than rooting them out of an urban environment, isn't it?

 

You see what I mean? All accusations but no evidence. You tell a lie about the president lying about Benghazi, when there is no evidence. If there had been real evidence, the wackos would have used it. You cannot win support for accusations of lying without proof. When will you folks ever learn that? Reasonable human beings already know that. That's why this thread and all the other Benghazi threads are a joke.

 

The email is conclusive proof. They knew it was a terrorists attack and they lied to the American people claiming it was a protest over a film that got out of hand.