You are behaving as if Obama's Benghazi Massacre had just now occurred, this very minute and we know practically nothing about it. I am sure you realize how frustrating it is to deal with people who behave like this. The factual foundation already exists. Granted the Marxist has been concealing and covering up as much as he possibly can. Fortunately there have been some random acts of journalism along the way.
Originally Posted by repeter
I then wrote, "Why did Rice get sent out to lie when she had no role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
Why didn't Clinton go out to lie instead? She was actually involved in Obama's Benghazi Massacre."
Is that your defense? Rice was too stupid to know she was lying so it wasn't really a lie? Really? That is your argument? Fantastic! (I went to charm school where I learned to say "fantastic" instead of BS)
For Rice to have been lying, she would be required to know what had actually happened, and there would need to be some form of evidence showing she was given instructions to not tell the truth. Give me evidence beyond reasonable doubt that both criteria are satisfied; you have certainly not done so anywhere on this thread.
We continued on, "Why did Obama continue to lie about a "hateful video" for weeks after he failed to respond to his massacre?"
I suppose it is possible that you are the last remaining person on Earth to not know that the Marxist is a slippery SOB.
For Obama to lie about the video (I'm assuming you're position is that he said the video was responsible, and that the attack was not a deliberate act of terror), he would have had to say he thought the attack was caused by that video.
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”Four Pinocchios for Obama on Benghazi terror claim « Hot Air
Glenn Kessler objects, giving the statement four Pinocchios in the Washington Post today. The Rose Garden speech, Kessler reports — again — addressed terrorism in general, not the Benghazi attack. Over the next several days, Obama had three opportunities to call it a terrorist attack, but declined to do so.
It is a lie oft repeated. See above. And from that article:
The only person, anywhere in the government, that I can find saying the attack was caused by the video was Susan Rice. Obama, the day after the attack said it was likely a deliberate act, and the investigation was ongoing.
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”
So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question. …
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed.
Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama’s Benghazi Lie – Valerie Jarrett’s West Wing Meltdown - The Ulsterman Report
The evidence of the lie is overwhelming and conclusive. Except for those who want to cling to the narrative, the lie, the cover-up.
Two days after Rice went on the air, Clinton came out to cement the understanding that the State Department views the attack as an act of terror. I'm working off this timeline
of the attack and administration's response.
Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.
(NOTE: Within 24hrs of Barack Obama telling America the video was to blame and calling it a “natural protest” Hillary Clinton goes on record with the term “terrorist attack”. Clinton and Obama are now in direct opposition – though publicly still circling their own wagons against growing accusations of a cover-up.
Clinton acknowledged the obvious on September 21st, not on September 13th. CBS, part of the state run media, is not to be believed after the fact.
Then I assked, "Do you think it is usual for a narcissist who never lacks for a photo op to disappear during his Massacre? Where did Obama go?"
Well, where are his photos? Why did no one have contact with the Dear Leader? Why did he disappear, allowing his Benghazi Massacre to occur unhindered?
You can ask baseless, conspiratorial questions all you want, but until you have some facts, hell, ONE fact to back up your suspicions, then this discussion can progress.
I also asked this, "How many more months of investigation do you think it will take before Obama finds out what he did or failed to do during his Benghazi Massacre?"
Presume what you wish. The Marxist was told of the attack around 5 PM and he promptly disappeared until the following morning, then headed off to a fundraiser. He claimed he would have a full investigation. It has been about a year. How many more months will it take (of investigation) before Obama finds out what he did, and failed to do during the attack?
Here I presume your position shifts to saying the Obama admin had actionable intelligence to suggest an attack was imminent, or that during the attack Obama could have done something to have counter-attacked or stopped it. This timeline
of the military response shows that by the time the aircraft that could've been carrying a 4-man Green Beret team arrives, the attack was over, and we pulled out more people. There were no assets in range of Benghazi, and unless you can show that we knew
, and by knew I mean we had actionable intelligence that President Obama was aware of, you logically cannot hold him responsible for not preparing for an attack he didn't know about.
You will have to do better than to give us the Obama talking points 11 months later.
I have given you answers, though I doubt you'll that they are both factual and against you. I can't wait for you to respond with the obligatory, "you provided no real facts" ploy. Maybe you could shake things up, break the stereotype of a person in your position, and give a factual counterclaim and source.