Page 1 of 41 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 405

Thread: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    On Sunday Sen. John McCain accused the Obama White House of a "massive cover-up" on "Meet the Press.

    Most of us know that the only thing Richard M. Nixon was guilty of was after learning of the Watergate break in, was the cover up from the White House until after the elections.

    For a year President Obama ran on "Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run." But the real truth was, Al Qaeda was on the run, running all over the Middle East and North Africa expanding their base of operations. Then on September 11th, 2012, four Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya. And this is where the cover-up begins. Obama ran for reelection on lies and he had to cover-up the Al Qaeda murder of four Americans or his lies about Al Qaeda being on the run would be exposed before the elections.

    >" While discussing the contentious confirmation hearings for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, things got a bit heated on Sunday's "Meet The Press" when Sen. John McCain referred to the lack of information from the White House surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi as a "massive cover-up."

    "There are so many answers we don't know," McCain told host David Gregory. "We've had two movies about getting bin Laden and we don't even know who the people were who were evacuated from the consulate the day after the [Benghazi] attack. So there are many, many questions. So we've had a massive cover-up on the part of the administration."

    Gregory then pressed McCain on what the Arizona senator meant by "a massive cover-up."

    "I'm asking you, do you care whether four Americans died?" McCain said. "And shouldn't people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died?"

    "Well, what you said was the cover-up--a cover-up of what?" Gregory asked.

    "Of the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans," McCain replied. "The information has not been forthcoming. You obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn't. And I'll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including 'What did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?'"McCain continued: "Why did the president for two weeks, for two weeks during the heat of the campaign continue to say he didn't know whether it was a terrorist attack or not? Is it because it interfered with the line 'Al Qaeda has [been] decimated'? And 'everything's fine in that in that part of the world'? Maybe. We don't know. But we need the answers. Then we'll reach conclusions. But we have not received the answers. And that's a fact."

    McCain claims
    Last edited by Serenity; 02-18-13 at 06:43 AM. Reason: Thread Title Edited to comply with *BN* Rules.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Benghazi is nothing more than a means to attack the President, and its quite shameful that this tragedy was turned into something like that. When the event first happened the first thing we were hearing was that Obama wanted to blame a video on YouTube for the attack, it wasn't calls for an investigation or anything productive, it just an attempt to make Obama seem like A) he blames Americans for these kinds of attacks and B) he is against our 1st amendment. Since then its evolved to theories that the State Department had ignored cables from the consulate which made requests for more security but were denied, ignored or unknown by upper leadership for a variety of reasons.

    When you listen to questions by the Republicans when hearing Clinton's testimony its a ****ing joke, everything is about trying to find a gotcha somewhere in there, hardly any effort is given to figure out exactly what happened there unless Clinton or Obama were PERSONALLY involved so they could make politics out of it even more. And just as bad the Dems in that hearing were just pitching softballs, constantly thanking her, and I think someone asked what were some good New York restaurants.

    Nothing about what happened, what went wrong, how can we avoid it, what's being done different now. Too much blame game, not enough problem solving.

    Anyone who wants to know what happened should read this:

    Scribd

  3. #3
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Benghazi is nothing more than a means to attack the President, and its quite shameful that this tragedy was turned into something like that. When the event first happened the first thing we were hearing was that Obama wanted to blame a video on YouTube for the attack, it wasn't calls for an investigation or anything productive, it just an attempt to make Obama seem like A) he blames Americans for these kinds of attacks and B) he is against our 1st amendment. Since then its evolved to theories that the State Department had ignored cables from the consulate which made requests for more security but were denied, ignored or unknown by upper leadership for a variety of reasons.

    When you listen to questions by the Republicans when hearing Clinton's testimony its a ****ing joke, everything is about trying to find a gotcha somewhere in there, hardly any effort is given to figure out exactly what happened there unless Clinton or Obama were PERSONALLY involved so they could make politics out of it even more. And just as bad the Dems in that hearing were just pitching softballs, constantly thanking her, and I think someone asked what were some good New York restaurants.

    Nothing about what happened, what went wrong, how can we avoid it, what's being done different now. Too much blame game, not enough problem solving.

    Anyone who wants to know what happened should read this:

    Scribd
    See if you can understand this:

    Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.

    That is why America's latest Medal of Honor winner, when asked to attend Obama's inauguration and sit with the President's wife, said NO. Obama is not one of us, he does not have America's historical warrior spirit. He has no natural feel for fighting men, no natural feel for duty, honor, country and courage.

    The infantile loons of course, simply bleat that the meanies are attacking their beloved messiah, the unfairness of it all.

  4. #4
    Student Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    150

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    I doubt this will be the end of Obama. I'm not a supporter of either major party, but it sickens me that the GOP is still politicizing this national tragedy several months later, while the Democrats remained silent during the 12 embassy/consulate attacks that happened under Bush. Either call presidents out on all of these events, or shut up. This is not the sort of thing that needs to be turned into a political weapon. Four Americans are dead; do you think they would want their deaths to become a sideline fact in a political ****fest?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray410 View Post
    See if you can understand this:

    Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.

    That is why America's latest Medal of Honor winner, when asked to attend Obama's inauguration and sit with the President's wife, said NO. Obama is not one of us, he does not have America's historical warrior spirit. He has no natural feel for fighting men, no natural feel for duty, honor, country and courage.

    The infantile loons of course, simply bleat that the meanies are attacking their beloved messiah, the unfairness of it all.
    I guess if you want to stick with the bull**** narrative you're free to do so, but again if you want the actual results of the investigation, which are not very kind at all to the adminstration they can be found here

    Scribd

    The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gunfire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at twoseparate facilities – the SMC and the Annex – and en route between them.Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilitiesand property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated theattacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks,which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.2.

    Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levelswithin two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in aSpecial Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grosslyinadequate to deal with the attack that took place.Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “sharedresponsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post,resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. Thatsaid, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy withWashington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, withtalented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel oftenon temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminishedinstitutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity
    And that's just on the fourth page. So if you read it you can both criticize the administration and have a ****ing clue about what you talking about, hurray!

  6. #6
    Guru
    Velvet Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    4,493

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Never. Not as long as Democrats are in control of the Senate.

    They'd rather lock up their own children than do/say anything against Lord Obama.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Velvet Elvis View Post
    Never. Not as long as Democrats are in control of the Senate.

    They'd rather lock up their own children than do/say anything against Lord Obama.
    These are the kind of comments that really show off how people will sometimes voluntarily become completely ignorant to enjoy the simplicity of an easy narrative. Is not the world so much simple and easy to comprehend when you view it in as a binary system, where all Democrats line up precisely behind one man whom you can direct your anger at, saving you the trouble of having to acknowledge differences amongst them?

  8. #8
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    So something went wrong; 4 Americans died; and asking questions about what went wrong is wrong? If nothing else, it guarantees that it does not happen again. Partisan politics be damned. Let the chips fall where they may. Keeping people from having answers sure as hell seems like a cover up of something to me.

  9. #9
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

    re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Benghazi will not be the downfall of President Obama because there is no such thing as a moral and curious press when it comes to President Obama.

    In the case of Nixon, you had a press that hated the man and went full bore to bring him down. In the case of Clinton, you had a press that loved the man and went full bore to dismiss and excuse his actions when they failed in hiding them. In the case of Bush II, you had a press that hated the man and went full bore to attack his every move. With Obama, you again have a press that loves the man, is highly invested in the man, they built him up and propelled him into the White House and they will do nothing that jeapordizes that.

  10. #10
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,573

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    The federal gov't is just too darn big to keep track of. It has thousands of programs, often with overlapping mission statements, many are so obscure that even their own department heads could not name them on a bet. Yet, each year, they are funded and deemed "needed" simply because they provide carreers for federal (and state) employees. What boongdoggles like fast & fuzzy, GSA parties, Solyndra and Benghazi should tell us is that when things "go wrong" nobody (high up) is ever "responsible" - a few peons are blamed for "using bad judgement" and all continues with little, if any, changes in their organizational sturcture.

    http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97337.pdf

    Top ten: wasteful government programs | The Daily Caller

    These are the WH "recommended" federal programs just for "drug abuse prevention":

    Included in this directory are substance abuse prevention programs with the goal of stopping drug use before it starts. It is important to note that the grant programs listed here often have more than one permissible use competing with drug prevention for the limited grant funds. For each program, the agency name, operating unit or bureau, program name, program-identifying number (CFDA), grantee types, grant type, grant program description, and recent appropriated and requested amount available to grantees are listed.
    Directory of Federally Funded Prevention Programs | The White House
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 1 of 41 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •